Monika`s Lost Olympic and Manipuri Explosion

NDTV.com Protests for Monika turn violentNDTV.com, India - 8 Aug 2008He said they have also urged Manipur government to demand a WhitePaper from the Centre on the issue of dropping of Monica. Officialsources said Manipur ...

Manipur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Manipur pronunciation(help·info) (mnipur in Meitei Mayek) is a state in northeastern Indiamaking its capital in the city of Imphal. Manipur is bounded by ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipur - 150k - Cached - Similar pages - Notethis

Champions keep playing until they get it right. -

Billie Jean King

Goal.com AFC Challenge Cup '08: Renedy: It Was A Team EffortGoal.com, Switzerland - 7 hours agoThe Manipur star mentioned that he and his colleagues had neverthought of being 3-0 up mid-way through the first half againstTajikistan. ...

Independence Day - View from the other side of the coinReuters India, India - 7 hours agoLack of economic opportunities is also a key factor in theproliferation of militant groups - in Manipur alone, there arereportedly 30-odd militant groups ...Pranab cautions Pak to keep off J&K issueZee News - 1 hour agoNew Delhi, Aug 14: India on Thursday cautioned Pakistan that itscomments on the developments in Jammu and Kashmir does not help createthe "right type of atmosphere" to carry on the composite dialogue.India warns Pakistan: Keep off J&K issue Times of IndiaPranab Mukherjee Times Now.tvHindu - NDTV.com - Economic Times - IBNLive.comall 304 news articles » हिन्दी में »

Monika`s lost Olympic is associated with the habitual rapist IndianHindu Zionist White Ruling Hegemony practice to use the State Power tocrush the aboriginal indigenous People since time Infinite!Only today, I was stunned to read a front page story in a NationalDaily written by a Guahati Editor. Based in North East, the prominentjournalist pleads for Army Action against so called BangladeshiIllegal Immigrants settled in the River island in Assam. Doing this,he shamelessly justifies the Armed Forces Special Act and advocates toexecute the Act in all those areas in North East where it is notimplemented. This journalist is known very colse to ULFA and herepents that ULFA activists are always killed in encounter and othersspared! The gist is the encounter campaign should be implementedagainst others ,too!

This journalist does not belong to North East. But since he happens tobe an editor in a Guahati based daily, he is expected to be aware ofthe sentiment of North East Indigenous people against the Militaryrepression under AFPSA umbrella!

He belongs to the so called Main Land!

India rightly celebrates the first Olympic Gold for India. It is ,ofcourse. a rare moment of Glory! May we expect the Manipuri peopleamong us at this moment!

It said Monika's exit was an attempt by mainland India to suppress thepeople of Manipur and demanded another test!

Monika was stopped from going to Beijing on August 6 at the eleventhhour after she tested positive for an unspecified banned substance.

However, three days later she was cleared by the SAI of any wrongdoing but the relief came too late for her to participate in theOlympics.

Recently, only on July 25 th July, I was a participant in a MediaMass Movement discourse organised by NAFRE People`s movement at GandhiDarshan, Rajghat New Delhi!

The words pronounced by a Manipuri Activist haunt me every time! Heasked, `We did everything! Our mothers stripped themselves before theKangla Fort and challenged the Army to rape them! Nothing happened.AFPSA continues! Continues the repression! What should we do tocommunicate the mainstream people of India?’

I have friends in North East!I have friends in Manipur!

I know them personally. They are opposed to the centre of repression!Thus, they ban Hindi. but in day to day life they communicate inHindi. We must understand this! Hindi is quite popular in Manipur. Butthey have to oppose Hindi as the Ruling Class in India plays theHindutva Politics of Hindi, Hindu , Hindustani!The Global ruling classuses the remote areas of North East for target practice and wargames!The North East Indigenous people are used as guinipigs!

But I feel the fire and smoke within from Kolkata! I know the peoplewho seem to be as cool as dynamites are. Who may explode anytime andanywhere!

nandigramunited: A MAESTRO IN MANIPUR Over the past decade, the littleand beautiful state of Manipur has replaced the larger and even ....ramguha@vsnl.com. Posted by Palash Biswas at 10:41 AM ...nandigramunited.blogspot.com/2008/04/maestro-in-manipur.html - 190k -Cached - Similar pages - Note this

ResistanceMonday, April 9, 2007. Palash Biswas Both feminism and nationalism inIndia emerged from the social reform movement of the C19th, it iswidely believed. ...resistanceindia.blogspot.com/2007/04/women-lead-resistance.html - 45k- Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Imaginary Lines and ManipurBefore being brought to the capital, she was being force-fed through anasal tube at a government-run hospital in Imphal, Manipur'scapital. ...palashbiswas.blog.co.uk/2006/10/22/imaginary_lines_and_manipur~1249870- Similar pages - Note this

The weightlifter from Manipur tested positive for an unnamed anabolicsteroid on August 6 and was pulled out of the Beijing-bound Indiansquad hours before the flight to Chinese capital.Unhappy about Sports Authority of India's flip-flop over dope testingallegedly involving weightlifter Monika Devi, Sports Minister M S Gilltoday appointed former Chief Election Commissioner T S Krishnamurthyto inquire into all aspects of this matter.

Krishnamurthy has been asked to submit his report within a week,sources in the Sports Ministry said.

Gill, who returned here from Beijing early 13th August morning,discussed all aspects of "this unfortunate incident" with his Ministryofficials, had a meeting with Monika and spoke to Manipur ChiefMinister Okram Ibobi Singh over phone after which he ordered theinquiry "to know the precise truth".

The meeting between Gill and Monika lasted for 45 minutes.

Meanwhile, a general strike has been called in the north easternstates of the country by four different insurgent outfits on August 15as a part of its boycott of the Independence Day of India.While announcing that the general strike would be effective from 1 amof August 15 to 6 pm of the same day, a joint statement of the fourinsurgent groups, the Kamatapur Liberation Organsation, KLO, ManipurPeople’s Liberation Front, MPLF, Tripura People’s Democratic Front,TPDF and the United Liberation Front of Asom, ULFA today also appealedto the people of the region to extend support to them and make theboycott and general strike a complete success.The underground outfits of the region have been boycotting theIndependence Day with a general strike over the last many years as apart of symbolic expression of solidarity against Indian rule, thestatement said.The Indian state has been employing all means, particularly covert andstate terrorism to intimidate the outfits and using massive militaryforce to push the liberation forces into ‘peace talks’.But as anticipated, such ‘peace talks’ have not produced the desiredresults even after 10 years of negotiations as talks could not resolvethe politico-military conflict in the region because it does notaddress the core issue of sovereignty and independence, it said. Sosome quarters are trying to sell the idea of ‘talks with pre-conditions’ as these quarters do not know the ulterior motive behindit, the statement said.However, it further said unrelenting armed struggles along withunarmed struggles in the region had defeated all the evil designs tosuppress the freedom struggle.The statement while observing that the freedom struggle was receivingmore and more acceptance, said that it was an encouraging to note theconcept of interdependent unity and coexistence among the people ofthe region.“This strength of ours needs to be consolidated to the maximum withall sincerity and earnestness,” the joint statement said.

The joint coordinating committee formed in connection with theconspiracy to exclude international weightlifter L Monika from theongoing Beijing Olympics has reaffirmed its call for a 24-hoursgeneral strike form 6 am of August 19 to protest against thediscrimination by national level organisations and sports bodies.The co-convenor of the coordinating committee, during a pressconference held this evening at the Manipur Olympic Association officeat Khuman Lampak main studium, mentioned that there will be noparticipation in any event or game organised at the national level byplayers from the state until justice is delivered in the case by theCentral government.He said it was unfortunate to announce a boycott of the players fromthe state who had already gone to participate in many national levelregional championships, inter SAI championships and athletics eventsbut the stand on the boycott by the committee would remain on theseplayers and coaches unless there was satisfactory explanation fromthose concerned, the spokesman added.The spokesman of the coordinating committee further mentioned that thecommittee had already completed mobilisations throughout the state tolaunch a state-wide protest by coordinating the local bodies anddistrict level civil society organisations in the state.The committee would conduct non violent agitations by holding dharnasand sit-in protests in the respective localities, he said.The spokesman also mentioned that the stand of the state governmentregarding the issue was not satisfactory and it was necessary to takethe issue directly to the people of the state.The press conference of the joint coordinating committee was attendedby representatives of the DESAM, AMSU, and various state level sportsorganisations.

The Telegraph, Kolkata reports:

Imphal, Aug. 13: That August 13 would be marked as a day of mourningwas etched on the Manipuri calendar in 1891 when freedom fighter BirTikendrajit was hanged by the British.

That weightlifter Monika Devi was to perform on this very day at theBeijing Olympics suddenly made the anguish even more poignant.

For years, observing Patriot’s Day on August 13 had become a ritual.The same floral tributes, speeches and functions.

An inexplicable ouster from the Olympics contingent and the dayassumed a new meaning.

Unlike in past years, when only the Manipur government held aceremonial function at Bir Tikendrajit park here, this year studentorganisations, social organisations and political parties joined thePatriot’s Day programmes.

“People in Manipur are observing Patriots’ Day today like neverbefore. Maybe because of the injustice done to Monika. People areconsidering denial of the weightlifter from Beijing Olympics a form ofrepression,” CPI state secretary Langol Iboyaima said.

Former minister N. Mangi Singh agreed. The day reminded people of thepast struggle of the forefathers to defend Manipur and the Monika casehas drummed up a sense of patriotism in the minds of the people, hesaid.

The day began with a ministerial team, led by chief minister OkramIbobi Singh, paying floral tributes at Hijam Yaichampat, Tikendrajit’sgraveyard, and then at Thangal mandir. Ibobi Singh also opened anextended portion of the Bir Tikendrajit park in the morning.

The main function organised by state government was held at the parkin the afternoon. At the programme, Governor Gurbachan Jagat and chiefminister Ibobi Singh goaded the youths to follow the freedom fighter’sideals.

But Monika weighed heavy was on the minds of student leaders.

“New Delhi is trying to suppress the people of Manipur. The manner inwhich she was thrown out of the Indian contingent to the Olympics is aglaring example of the suppression of Manipuri people by the Indiangovernment,” P.C. Newton, adviser of the Democratic Students Alliance,Manipur, said at a function organised jointly by the alliance and theAll Manipur Students Union at C.C. Higher Secondary School.

Former Thoubal district president of the All Manipur Students Union,M. Madhumangol, admitted that Patriots Day was “neglected” in the pastby the people of Manipur. “We should observe the day every year toinstil a sense of patriotism in young minds,” he said.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080814/jsp/northeast/story_9689103.jsp

Defamation Angle

Source: IMPHAL FREE PRESSPosted: 2008-08-14

The bitterness that the injustice done to weightlifter L Monika hasleft in the hearts of most in Manipur is unlikely to wash away for along time, and rightly so too. But whatever be the resort, what’s donecannot be undone. However, the redeeming power of justice andretribution must not be taken for granted. In this regard, itheartening that the Union government has conceded to the first demandof the agitating public and today instituted an inquiry into theaffair to establish the truth behind what is now evidently a game ofpetty politics of regionalism. We hope the penalty awarded as per thelaw if guilt is established at the end of the probe is alsoproportionate to the offence committed. Second, as the saying goes, inpublic issues like this it is not enough that justice is done, butjustice must also be seen as done, and emphatically too. Towards thisend, it would be obligatory on the part of the Union government tomeet the other demand by the aggrieved party and immediately takepublic cognizance of the circumstantial evidences that distinctlypoint to a possibility of serious miscarriage of justice in the case.It is true that Manipur, and indeed the entire Northeast is easilyhurt, but this is because any slight or insensitivity on the part ofthe Centre towards it, opens up afresh old festering wounds, and theCentre needs to empathise with this.

But there are more reasons why the Monika issue should not be treatedas trivial. Apart from unfairly making a promising athlete miss whatis the dream of any athlete, it is also a serious case of defamation.Surprisingly, this angle has been least focused on by the media orpublic in the present controversy. The muck from the serious chargedoping would have tarnished Monika’s image beyond total redemptioneven if the charge is cleared. This is particularly so because thecharge is on a person whose occupation makes it extremely plausiblethat she could have been guilty. Susceptibility of drugs use amongstweightlifters is something everybody is willing to believe or suspectas a distinct possibility. Her name is going to be, in fact isalready, directly or indirectly associated with the use of bannedperformance enhancing drugs, even if it is just to say that she isinnocent of the offence. Those in the advertising profession will knowbetter how much this constant association of her name with doping isgoing to harm her image in the average mind. To elaborate with anexample, to accuse any girl of being a prostitute is bad, but unlessthe charge is proven there will not be many who take it too seriously.Instead, all that comes through may be a slap on the accuser’s face.But if a girl working in the hospitality department of a 5-star hoteldoing round the clock shift duty, or an air-hostess keeping similarwork schedule and spends most off duty hours in hotels away from home,were to be accused of sexual infidelity, and especially if the chargecomes from the management, the mud is much more likely to stick evenif she is perfectly innocent. The damage to her reputation would alsooutlive the proof of innocence. Monika’s predicament is close to thelatter scenario, but harsher, because her case is now in the publicdomain. If we were Monika’s legal advisers, we would have suggestedher to file a defamation suit against those who made this extremelygrave and false charge against her and then as if in a fit offrivolity, withdrew it claiming she is clean. This is not laughingmatter.

However, having said this, we would also suggest to those who areagitating against the injustice done, to limit their demand to seekingjustice, and not go about burning bridges. Monika was victim of apetty politics (or conspiracy if you like) and not everybody is givento such pettiness as was more than evident even in the manner theIndian Weightlifting Federation, IWF, stood solidly behind her duringthe entire crisis. Again, although some SAI top officials seem to beimplicated in this impish game even at the cost of destroying somebodyelse’s career, nobody will doubt that the SAI as an institution hasalso been behind the empowering of so many extraordinary sportingtalents from the state in the decades that have gone by. Even in themidst of darkness, let sanity not be lost. But to underscore the pointonce again, in assuaging this hurt sentiment, the empathy of theCentre would be of tremendous help.http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=1923&typeid=0

Amidst reports that weightlifter Monika Devi has been cleared of dopecharges, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) said on Saturday, 9thAugust2008, that it was too late for her to take part in the BeijingOlympics."It is too late for Monika to come to Beijing now and take part in theOlympic Games because we have closed the entry process," IOA SecretaryGeneral Randhir Singh said.Asked if IOA President Suresh Kalmadi could do anything to help Monikatake part in the 69kg weight category competition scheduled for August13, Randhir said it was not possible at this level."What can Mr Kalmadi do? It is not National Games. It is Olympic Gamesand only IOC can take a decision," said Randhir who is also a memberof the International Olympic Committee.Deputy Chef-de-Mission of Indian Olympic contingent in Beijing BaljitSingh Sethi said, "Monika just cannot take part in the BeijingOlympics. As of now, the organisers have not accepted her entry and tobe honest I don't see her competing here".Asked to confirm if Monika was indeed coming here, Sethi said, "See,you cannot stop anyone from coming here. But the thing is she cannottake part. Her name has been withdrawn and how can she compete? Shewill not be allowed to enter the Olympic village."Singh pointed out the draw of contestants in the 69kg category hasbeen drawn up and Monika's name does not figure in that.The Union Sports Minister, M.S. Gill, has instituted an enquiry intothe circumstances in which weightlifter Monika Devi was not sent toBeijing for the Olympics.On his return from Beijing, the minister had a meeting with MonikaDevi and all others concerned regarding the issue and decided toinstitute an enquiry. The enquiry will be conducted by the formerChief Election Commissioner, T.S. Krishnamurthy.“I have requested him (Mr. Krishnamurthy) to come to Delhi at theearliest to hold this inquiry, and to favour me with his report andrecommendations at the earliest,” Mr. Gill said through an officialrelease on Wednesday,13th august.

The Indian Weightlifting Federation instituted its own panel to hearthe lifter from Manipur and cleared her participation, though, bythen, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA0 had withdrawn her name fromthe entry list and there was no way of re-entering her after August 7.“As Sports Minister, while I am determined to set up an independent,technically proficient dope testing mechanism, which has credibilityin the world, and towards which end I have taken certain stepsalready, I am also equally anxious that no sportsperson should sufferdue to any laxity or delay on the part of this testing mechanism.While ensuring prompt and firm action in Monika Devi’s case, I amdetermined to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future. Iwant to assure all sportspersons that they will get full considerationand fair treatment from me at all times.”It may be recalled that the Manipur Chief Minister had sought a CBIinquiry into the incident even as agitations have been going on in theState against the manner in which Monika’s case was handled.

Coming down harshly on the Sports Authority of India (SAI) for therecent dope charges, weightlifter Laishram Monika Devi alleged thatthe country's apex sport body has plotted a conspiracy to end hersporting career. ''I have no plans to go for retirement. But after thehuge media hype, I fear that the IOA, SAI and IWF may not give me the'no objection certificate', which will deprive me from taking part infuture competitions,'' Monika said.''A top-ranking official in SAI is threatening and metally harassingme in order to remove me out of the Indian team and favouring anotherplayer,'' the lifter stated.The weightlifter from Manipur, who missed the Olympics despite beingcleared of doping charges, further expressed her frustration at notbeing able to participate at Beijing.''I have been training hard for this Olympics since the last threeyears. I also gave several tests; and none of them were positiveexcept for the sample collected in Pune,'' lamented Monika.She added, ''the SAI must have manipulated my sample, otherwise howcould other samples taken just about a fortnight later be negative?''If I had tested positive, why was I allowed to continue in theOlympic camp for more than two months? Why did they announce theresult just before I was due to leave for Beijing?'' Monika said shehas no problem to undergo any test by an independent agency and isready to accept punishment if found guilty.Accusing IOA and SAI of being involved in "a big manipulative game" tokeep out weightlifter Monika Devi of the Beijing Olympics, ManipurChief Minister O Ibobi Singh on Sunday,10th august, decided to pushfor a CBI probe into the whole episode."The entire episode appears to be a big manipulative game played bySAI, the national dope testing laboratory and the IOA against asportsperson whose dream for Olympics has been shattered," Singh tolda press conference here.He said as per the international norms the Sports Authority of India(SAI) should have made public the dope testing reports of the Manipuriweightlifter at least 72 hours before her proposed departure for theChinese capital but this was not done.He said the SAI report was sentto the Indian Weightlifting Federation at 12.30 pm on August 6 whileMonika's flight was at 3.30 am on the same day.Singh said a probe should be conducted into how the SAI report wasleaked "in violation of rules"."The SAI, the highest authority of Indian sports, has done a greatdamage to the career of the Monika, it's a great injustice with a pre-planned motive, done to an international sportsperson," he said.Singh also said Monika would not be sent to Beijing anymore as therewas no possibility for her entry request to be entertained by theGames organisers."Monika will not go to Beijing now as there is no way for her tocompete in the Games," he said.Meanwhile, Indian Weightlifting Federation President Harbhajan Singhblamed the "procedural lapses" for Monika missing the Games."It was all a procedural lapse and those responsible for it would betaken to task," he said.

KCP warns SAI (Manipur) on L MonikaSource: The Sangai ExpressImphal, August 07: Strongly protesting the exclusion of L Monika fromthe Olympic squad, the proscribed KCP has asked the officials of theSports Authority of India (Manipur Centre) to resign from their postsas soon as possible and added that an indefinite ban on theadministration of SAI (Manipur Centre) will be imposed from tomorrow(August 9).In a statement self styled chief project officer-cum-secretary, information and public relations department, Ibungo Ngangomsaid that the decision has been taken after careful consideration ofthe corrupt practices and discriminatory treatment meted out toplayers by officials of SAI, which have a demoralising effect on thesportspersons of the land who often outshine their counterparts fromother States of India.The outfit has also asked the Imphal Municipal Council to properlytreat Langol area which is presently being used as a dumping sitecontending that the piling garbage is posing a threat to the health ofthe people of Langol in particular.http://www.e-pao.net/epRelatedNews.asp?heading=Snipp6&src=080808

On August 6, two days ahead of the Olympics, she was pulled back andnot allowed to leave for the Games with the Indian contingent justhours before they were to take their flight. She reportedly testedpositive for banned steroids in a test conducted by the SportsAuthority of India (SAI). Later, she was apparently given a clean chitbut the entire incident remains shrouded in mystery.Manipur Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh met Prime Minister Manmohan Singhand is believed to have taken up the issue of weightlifter L MonikaDevi's exclusion from the Indian Olympic team. The Chief Minister isunderstood to have taken up the issue, which has sparked widespreadprotest in Manipur, with the Prime Minister, official sourcessaid.Earlier, Manipur Olympic Association (MOA) had decided not toparticipate in any national championship and forthcoming NationalGames if Monika was not sent to Beijing as part of the Indian Olympicteam. The decision to boycott the national championships and NationalGames was taken at a joint meeting of the MOA, different sportsassociations and students organisations yesterday in Imphal.A 24-hour general strike was observed in Manipur on 8th August 2008,in protest against the dropping of Monika from the Indian team toBeijing. Monika's exclusion in the team became a major issue, inManipur with sports associations organising rallies to protest againstthe dropping of Monika from the team.Normal life came to a standstill in Manipur on Friday due to a 24-hourgeneral strike called by several social organisations to protest thedropping of weightlifter Monika Devi from the Indian Olympic team toBeijing.Official sources said markets, shops and business establishmentsremained closed in response to the strike call given by differentorganisations, including United Committee Manipur (UCM).Attendance in government offices was also reported 'very low' becauseof the general strike which began from midnight last, the sourcessaid.Transport services between Manipur and neighbouring states and withinthe state were also suspended.Sports lovers burnt vehicle tyres on roads at Singjamei in Imphal Westdistrict to prevent movement of people in the area.However, no untoward incident was reported during the strike, thesources said.Describing the dropping of Monika as "pre-planned", Manipur OlympicAssociation (MOA) and Manipur Weightlifting Association (MWA) havedemanded a thorough probe into the issue.They said it was an attempt to include weightlifter P Shailaja in theteam in place of Monika.With Monika's exclusion in the team becoming a major issue, stateSports minister N. Biren rushed New Delhi on Thursday to find out thedetails.At least five sportspersons were injured when police burst tear gasshells on Thursday to disperse a rally organized by sportsorganisations to protest against the dropping of Monika.

A series of protests were followed by arrests but there is no lookingback as far as Manipuri students in the Indian Capital are concerned.They gathered in large numbers in the Capital on Tuesday to protestagainst the way weightlifter Monika Devi’s Olympic dream was ruinedwhen she was preparing to leave for Beijing.Students from JNU, DU, and Jamia Millia raised their voice against the‘injustice’ meted out to a sportsperson from Manipur. Demanding animmediate CBI inquiry into the doping controversy, they said thatthose responsible for tyring to disgrace their state must be heldaccountable. "Despite putting forth our demands to the sports ministryseveral times, they refused to cooperate. A large number of students,including those who held a meeting with ministry officials werearrested, but we will not give up," said Chinglen, a student from DU.Thokchom Meinya, MP from Manipur, said, "We are demanding a whitepaper and SAI should conduct an inquiry into the matter. One day theysay the test is positive, another day they say it is negative. How canthings work in this manner?"Talking about the arrests, Gurdeep Singh, ACP Parliament street policestation said, "We detained around 60 students, but have released themafter giving them a warning."

Meanwhile, By rallying behind weightlifter Monika Devi — who wasstopped from leaving for the Beijing Olympics over a dopingcontroversy — at a function to honour two freedom fighters fromManipur, BJP’s prime ministerial candidate L K Advani on Wednesdayreached out to the state, that has rarely figured on the BJP’s radar.“I felt sad. Because of her — and Manipur — India could have earned aname in the Olympics going on in China. After the news of the dopingcontroversy, it was said two days later that it was wrong,” saidAdvani.Indian Express reported:`In what appears to be part of a cleverly-crafted strategy to reach out to diverse groups, Advani on Wednesdayaddressed a function organised by a Manipur association. In the lastfew months, he has addressed meeting under the auspices of Churchbodies, party’s minority cell and even managed to get superstars likeMammootty for his book-release functions.“A great injustice has been done to Monika Devi. Manipur has anextremely healthy sporting tradition. How many people would be awarethat the current Indian soccer team in the Olympics has as many asfour players from the state,” asked Adavni. Recalling his rath yatraof 1997, the BJP PM candidate said: “How many people in Delhi, acountry in miniature, would be aware of Bir Tikendrajit and GeneralThangal, the two illustrious freedom fighters from the state,” askedAdvani.’Police burst teargas shells and baton charged hundreds of Manipurisportspersons who tried to the storm the chief minister's residence inImphal on Thursday to protest the removal of weightlifter LaishramMonika Devi from the Beijing Olympic squad after she failed a dopetest.A police spokesman said about 500 people, all of them sportspersons,took out a rally and tried to enter the chief minister's residencewhen police intervened."We burst teargas shells and resorted to mild baton charge to dispersethe protesters. The situation is normal and there were no reports ofany injuries," the police official said.Authorities later allowed five of the protesters to meet the chiefminister."We want a thorough investigation and the intervention of the Manipurgovernment to ensure that Monika Devi is included in the IndianOlympic squad," one of the protesters said.Meanwhile, family members of Monika Devi and locals said the entireepisode was a conspiracy and an attempt to defame sportspersons fromthe northeast."This entire episode is nothing but a conspiracy against my daughterto promote someone else. We want the test to be confirmed by the WorldAnti-Doping Agency (WADA) and request the authorities to repeat thetest at the doping test facility in Beijing," Monika's father LNabachandra Singh told IANS.Monika Devi, hailing from Potsangbam Nachou village in Bishnupurdistrict, was to compete in the 69 kg category at the Beijing Olympicsbeginning Friday."This is another attempt at defaming sportspersons from the northeastand reflects the attitude of the mainstream towards the northeast,"said Brajamani Singh, a community elder in capital Imphal.The last minute withdrawal of Manipuri weightlifter L Monika from theIndian Olympic squad has drawn vehement allegations of conspiracy anddiscrimination from various students, civil, political and sportsbodies.The Manipur People’s Party, MPP has said that the removal of Monikafrom the squad was part of a conspiracy by the Indian OlympicAssociation, Sports Authority of India and the Central government.Speaking at a press conference, president Dr L Chandramani lauded thecourage of Monika who challenged the director of SAI and officials ofthe Indian Olympic Association on the undue treatment given to her.He also said that this was not the first case of discriminationagainst Manipuri players.As all the five dope tests conducted on Monika were found negativebefore confirmation of her selection to represent India, the lastminute positive doping test was certainly a manipulated one, heasserted adding that this was a game plan to send weightlifterShailaja of Andhra Pradesh.MLA Ng Bijoy who also spoke at the press conference insisted that evenif the Central government does not sent her to the Olympics, sheshould be sent to Beijing by the people of the state.He also said that the state chief minister, O Ibobi Singh and otherpoliticians of the state should fly to Delhi and look into the matterdirectly.O Joy Singh, MLA also said that the incident was shocking not only forthe people of the state but also for the sports lovers of India aswell as the world.He also informed that the MPP had lodged a complaint with theconcerned authorities to look into the matter.RK Anand, MLA demanded that the sports minister, N Biren should go toBeijing with Monika and allow her to participate in the competition.The BJP, Manipur state unit while condemning the removal of Monikafrom the Indian squad said that it was not a good example and the unittook it seriously. Those involved in the conspiracy should bepunished, it demanded.Amrik Singh Pahwa, a social worker from Imphal also said in astatement that the executive committee of the Imphal bazar board mettoday and discussed the doping test of Monika which had shocked allcommunities as well as sportspersons.Pahwa also said that he had contacted the Union sports secretarySudhir Nath, joint secretary sports Sriniwas as well as cheif of thenational dope testing laboratory, New Delhi and conveyed thesentiments of the people here.He also spoke to former state chief secretary Jarnail Singh and MSGill and urged for necessary action in the controversial dope testissue.Shock on the controversial test result and condemnation of thedropping of the lone representative from India in weightlifting at theBeijing Games also came from various students bodies like the AllIndia Students Federation, AISF, Manipuri Students’ Federation, MSF,and Kangleipak Students’ Association.The North East Dialogue Forum in a statement said that the test mightnot have been carried out properly while observing that the decisionof SAI director RK Naidu had insulted the people of the north east ingeneral and the people of Manipur in particular.The Centre For Social Development, Palace Compound, Women Action forDevelopment, Nongmeibung, Chanura Lamjinglel Kangleipak, Imphal,MEELAL, Kanglei Apunba Yaipha Lup, Manipur, All Manipur Nupi Marup,Irawat complex, Manipur Tug-of-War Association and Thangmeiband UripokClub Organisation also strongly condemned the disgraceful manner inwhich the sports authorities had treated Monika.In the meantime, a join representation of the DESAM, AMSU, All ManipurBody Building Association, AMBBA, SAI, Manipur Women HockeyAssociation, SAI NERC, YWO, Singjamei, Macha Leima, HERICON, MAFYF,Manipur Swimming Association, Mapi Council, UPF, All Manipur KickBoxing Federation, Manipur Olympic Association, MIKHOL, WACAK andNIPCO was submitted to the chief minister urging him to take necessarysteps to clear Monika’s participation in the weightlifting event atthe Beijing Olympics.Monika....Manipur is behind you

R.K. Shivachandra *In the last couple of months Monika had her urine sample tested morethan four times and it was then found to be negative. Than how thisdope 'positive news' suddenly sprung up at the eleven hour?The aircraft which was to pick Monika Devi along with her fellowOlympians to China had been abandoned on the charges of being'positive' collaborated on purpose with an anabolic steroid in herurine sample. Monika, since the last few months had consecutively beenparticipating in a series of International events.This sudden news has shown the stark conspiracy hatched by the SAIofficials against the lone woman weight-lifter of Manipur who had beenselected to participate in the Olympic event. Shall we go for furtherdetail other than this? Unfortunately this woman-lifter happened to befrom a state called Manipur in the North Eastern parts of India.If she ever hails from West Bengal, Maharastra or Delhi than Indiawould have been stormed by her news, media in and around the capitalcity of India would have been busy to make it cover story but it isnot so for poor Monika, for she hails from Manipur.Dope positive news is not a new story but the way the unscrupulous SAIofficials had meted out to her is definitely a case of conspiracy..this cannot be altered. Shall we continue watching before thetelevision the gleefully marching Indian contingent in BeijingOlympic?Manipuris are not only a second class citizen but 5th class citizen inthe views of many sports officials of India. The SAI ExecutiveDirector, Mr. RK. Naidu, whoever he may be should be held responsiblefor this.He refused to give the test report to Monika on the pretext that itwas an official document and not to be shown to the athlete. What adevil in his brain. At this juncture we need to see the functioningstyle of the SAI institutions in India.Sometimes we are inclined to think whether SAI is doing more harm thangood especially to our Manipuris. Functioning of Institutions like SAIneeded to be closely observed in Manipur. Manipuris can do betterwithout a corrupt Institution like SAI.We have already produced a lot of players long before the concept ofSAI was mooted in India. If SAI and its branches in India ever triesto kill the very spirit of sports of the Manipuris, than we may notremain a mute spectators.People like Naidu call themselves Sports Officials, speak as if theyknow everything but I wonder if they ever had possessed any bonesinside their fleshy bodies that belongs to sports. Corruption,nepotism in sports had been practicing in India since long.The step-motherly treatment or the age old concept of Indians sportsofficials leading them to think North Eastern parts of India as analien culture; alien race calls for a rethink and be ashamed of theirundue behavior towards the heroes in the field.Better recall- this is Manipuris that speaks volumes of Indian sportsin the international context. Yet, how we can easily forget the caseof Kunjarani Devi who despite of her enough qualification toparticipate in the Olympic events, however was made to participate ata much later stage when the weight lifter had almost retired from thecompetition.So also the in case of Sepak Takraw in Asian Games. The Game wasdropped from the Indian contingent only because of the fact that allthe participants were from Manipur.Thoiba the yesteryears icon in the India hockey scene was simplydenied captainship of Indian Hockey team for he was a Manipuri. Tomany of the Indians of the mainland, Manipuris with flat nose withhalf open eyes appeared to be more of Chinese than Indians.We are sorry we cannot be one of those pointed nose and hairy Indiansas far as our outlook goes. This is something we cannot change and wemay be excused.Officials who are intended to take Saileja Pujari in lieu of Monikahave now reiterated "There is no need to get another weightlifter. Itis already embarrassing enough before the Games and since there is nochance of a medal, what is the point in raking up the issue again,"said an official on condition of anonymity.The deputy chef-de-mission of the Indian contingent, Baljeet SinghSethi, also said: "We are actually relieved it happened before shereached here because it would have shamed the country if she hadfailed a test at the Olympics."Crook, Hypocrite ... are not they? The corrupt officials speak endlessdialogue with their sore tooth but not the spirit of sports in theirsouls.Somebody should tell Mr. Baljeet the so called India deputy chef-de-mission to Beijing Olympics that if the India Government ever affordto invest quarter of the amount of the whole budget of the Indiansports to Manipur, than by now there would have been hundred of medalsin Indian's kitty. If so Indian sports official like Mr. Baljeet wouldhave held his neck high while meeting with his foreign counterparts.The State Government and Centre both should swallow the bitter pill offact that Monika could be another Manorama's case in the Manipur'sscenario. This is not the first time the players from Manipur havebeen deprived by the Indian sports officials in Delhi.Their outlooks are as narrow as they are. Their vision through thethick lenses of their spectacle concentrated in specific zonessomewhere in the mainland. I wonder how many of them know that Indiahas a three-time world champion in women's boxing from Manipur.Monika may be in the Indian contingent or not-tomorrow will tell.Thanks to Minister Biren who had been to Delhi to challenge the causeof Monika. This pen had never been habituated written poems on thebravery of legislators who have already shown a bed example to thepeople of Manipur.But as a true citizen of Manipur, I simply acknowledge my heartfeltgratitude to the Minister of sports, Manipur that through his endeavorlet Monika be seen in the limelight of Olympic in Beijing.AnecdoteTraveling for the first time abroad in 1994, I was sitting quiet inthe big Cathay-Pacific Aircraft in Hong Kong. In a few minutes theaircraft would be air-bound for Taipei and then to Seoul where I willhave to make my final destination. Next to me was an Indian fromMaharastra who run a factory in Maharastra, a big shot as he looks.But the kind of typical Indian that everybody would have spotted himout. As the air-stewardess passed by, I have requested for a glass ofwater which the beautiful air hostess happily offered with a smile.The gentleman next to me also requested the same favour for a glass ofwater. The quick answer of the stewardess upset my co-passenger, whenshe replied "Sorry gentleman, let the flight take off!".The gentleman felt a little embarrassment and I simply shy away to sipthe glass of water offered by the spotless clean lady of the Cathay-Pacific. The Indian gentleman who was denied a glass of water beforeit took off murmured to my ears "She thinks you are a Chinese".My inner self also says he is right. Had it been in Delhi he wassupposed to have the first glass of water. Sensing my broad nose withmy fingers, soon a sense of pride and happiness crept into my mind andthat was a wonderful feeling.http://e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=news_section.opinions.RK_Shivachandra_Opinion.Monika_Manipur_is_behind_youDefining UnlawfulBy: R.K. Shivachandra *

Shall we say, don't drink water because fishes defecate in it. This isexactly what the SPF Government recently did by reiterating that theMedia will be liable to be punished under certain laws if they publishunderground related news.The clean politician claimed to have no nexus with the undergroundelement, let him throw the first stone to the Press. I am afraid willthere be one? If it is viewed from practical aspects what would beManipur Newspaper like without filling their columns with such newsitems.Do we have any news not related to crimes now a days? But when itcomes to blame somebody one shouldn't forget that the finger thatpoints to someone has at the same time another four fingers thatcontradicts himself. We are all there as a part of it.Be it Government or any element whatsoever under the Sun has its ownshare either bad or good in the present affair of Manipur. Shall welet the Manipur Press also follow the yardstick of "Myanmar NewsLight" or "Myanmar Times" published in Myanmar that carries only theGovernment related news, nothing but developmental news like where theDam was built, bridges have been inaugurated kind?Military Junta in one way could act themselves as true people'srepresentatives despite being a military ruled Government in Myanmar.However imposing the style and functioning of Myanmar in this State ofIndia, which is known to be the Greatest Democracy of the World may beunfair.The Press is in dilemma, like the war prisoners who have no right toprotest. They are made forced hostages in their own soil. The deepblue sea or the monster is equally dangerous. The Government imposescertain strictures of 'Dos and Don'ts' on the Press Fraternity inManipur. Would not this tantamount to breach of laws that violates thesanctity of freedom of Press?I cannot see any reason why should not the Government also be brandedanother unlawful agency for breach of laws. Press alone shouldn't getthe blame neither Government should throw its weight on them. The SPFGovernment instead of gagging the mouth of Press can better dosomething innovative with the help of Medias like other state does.In our neighboring Assam, ULFA is no longer viewed as a dreadedunlawful organization. Tarun Gogoi in his recent statement said hisgovernment had recommended the release of some of the jailed ULFAleaders if that would help in bringing peace to the State. Hepronounced 'We are definitely going to ask the government during thetalks to expedite the process of releasing the five jailed ULFAleader.On the other hand ULFA is on the rise in terms of violence; struck ina big way killing hordes of Hindi-speaking people across the State ofAssam. In such juncture Press plays the most vital kind of role, whichthe State Government needed the most. This is not in support of anyvandalism or in the act of atrocities; it is still believed that everyproblem has a solution.Let us not say that columns of forces that deployed in Manipur willstamp out insurgency. There should be some other means to bring Peacein Manipur. Kuldip Nayar, renowned journalist, rightly commented "If agovernment wants to depend on "extra-judicial powers" to administerany part of the country even after 57 years of Independence; there issomething basically wrong with the approach of that government.Former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission RanganathMishra admitted that AFSPA was "grossly misused". The presentgovernment cannot brush aside his criticism because he was brought tothe Rajya Sabha on the Congress ticket." I hope Kuldip Nayar didn'tsay wrong.Manipur is virtually engulfed with chaos, turmoil and unrest.Apprehension prevails that Manipur may break into pieces someday. MLAsand MP who got elected from Manipur Assembly Constituencies havesubmitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister of India recently tosegregate parts of Manipur and form a bigger state merging withNagaland.When one fathoms the degree, is there anything unlawful other thanthis act? What the Government will have to say on this? Laws itselfdon't prevail in the Palace; laws are being breached by the rulers andthe King becomes dumbfounded. At this point of time laws are not meantto be enforced upon the subjects. So the term unlawful needs to bediscussed broadly on a more befitting platform.Yes we are talking on emotional aspects; emotional integrity,territorial integrity and lots more. If His Excellency, the Governorof Manipur or the Hon'ble Chief Minister ever travels on the NationalHighway 39 that leads to Dimapur of Nagaland only then they wouldunderstand as to how the most talked about "Emotional Integration"slipped off in the trouble torn Manipur.Starting right from Gopibung near kangpokpi down the border town Maoof Manipur there are numerous potholes big enough to drown a baby -child. This has been almost an abandoned terrain by our wealthy-heftyMinisters and bureaucrats. I wonder how on the Earth one could findsuch a deplorable National Highway.The poor maintenance of the road never reveals that the Chief Ministerever slightly ponders the integration issue. Nonetheless theGovernment talks big things; about developmental works being takenplace etc. However driving along the road there is nothing one can bepositive or optimistic about in their thought.Every pothole made one to recall the name of Ibobi with a chant ofblessing to live long the Chief Minister. Controlling the wheel is allyou will have to do nothing comes in mind. As for me this is unlawful;grossly violated the right of basic amenities of the people. ShreeIbobi should get advice from his Nagaland Counterpart how the lattermade a road from Khuzama and the rest of the stretches of NationalHighway in Nagaland akin to the road of Jan path Road in New Delhi.Let us do some practical exercise; not to lament or shedding crocodiletears. Let us make Manipur ever resourceful and economic-self reliantstate with good transport and communication. Let us dream Manipur beconverted into a large rice bowl, another commercial hub like Bangkokand Yangon in the South East Asia.Manipur by virtue of its geographic location is known to be theGateway to the South East Asia. Why shouldn't we take advantage of it?Bangkok or Singapore doesn't require any emotional integration'splead.Well Manipur should be a fertile and economic zone where every son ofthe soil flock together and prosper together. When that time comes theemotional integration chapter will sink itself in the fold of thehistory for Love and tranquility will prevail across the horizon.Integrity Anecdote:Sadananda the popular singer and star of Manipur silver screenhappened to accompany me to Kohima where he had to stage a concertlast year. My car in which we were traveling needed to have arepairing for some mechanical defect in a workshop at Senapati.Soon the workshop was crowded with a lot of Sadananda's fans who weremostly teens. They seemed to be overjoyed seeing their favorite starand having an eyeball to eyeball talk with him. The ever smiling heroof the screen distributed sweets to his fans and small kids alike.Never was Shadananda considered by the crowd that he belongs to aparticular community. People simply loved to hear what hesaid..readily to applaud in favour of him. For the moment the spiritof integration was flying high.I hope any talker or spokesperson who has the capability of beingglued to microphone hours on integration issue would not have beenable to pull that much crowd as did by Sadananda. It took place in anunexpected time in a corner of Senapati where the theme of emotionalintegration requires to be planted cautiously and see how it blooms.In one way Sadananda is a more practical crusader of EmotionalIntegration than anyone else."The Eskimo has fifty-two names for snow because it is important tothem; there ought to be as many for love."- Margaret AtwoodThe IllusionBy: R.K. Shivachandra *

Have you ever come across any Manipuri who had a local schoolbackground and at the same time forgotten his own language in thechanging pace of the world?I fortunately met one such gentleman in Zakhama Loyola English School,Nagaland where he was serving as an assistant teacher. This happenedway back in 1986 when I was being introduced to him by one of myfriends who was also serving as a teacher in a private school nearbyZakhama.The gentleman in question introduced himself as Rajesh hailing fromThoubal district of Manipur never spoke any language other thanEnglish but amusingly in the kind of tone which itself revealed who hewas. I was amused and further enquired how he had forgotten his ownmother tongue? He said ?I came here at an early age and hardly got thechance to speak Manipuri. Now I can?t speak it?.This reminded me of the joke of two Manipuris who pretended to eachother of being foreign nationals - one as Thai and the other as aKorean at their first meeting in Mumbai. Later they came to know eachother?s identity only when they were dining together in a restaurantwhere they started murmuring vulgarities in Manipuri dialect blamingoneself for not being familiar with the ?fork and spoon? tradition.Dolak Phom was also a popular person who had been elected as one ofthe town committee members in the ?Tuensang Town Committee? in 1995. Awonderful personality so eloquent in Phom dialect that one wouldmistake him as an influential Phom politician. However, he is aManipuri who never returned home over the years.Yet he still speaks excellent Manipuri. He is quite a capable chap inthe Tuensang district of Nagaland who in the process of life married alocal woman, thereafter he had been known as Dolak Phom otherwise hewas Sanasam Dhiren.One elderly friend of mine who had been breathing the air of Mizoramfor forty years now is also a well-known Manipuri in Aizawl butunluckily without a surname of his own. All his offspring opted forthe surname and title of their mother and the father seemed to havefollowed suit.It is not an offensive or objectionable act but what is the harm whenone remains true to the self instead of shying away from his origin?Is it a sin to be a Manipuri? Can't one settle there upholding one?sown identity and roots?In the same case, I came across many Muslim gentlemen who had settledin different parts of the country having inter- marriage life with thelocals of the place but they hardly embraced other religion orconverted to some other community for mere gain in life.Once I met one of my respected teachers in Shillong who had almostsettled in Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. He had given me a visitingcard when we parted. I wrote a letter enquiring about his well beingand recollecting the short encounter in Shillong when I reachedDelhi.The reply was so embarrassing and cold and I was warned not to writehis full surname on the envelope next time. Later I learnt that ?L?which he uses in short form, doesn?t stand for Leisangthem but theadopted surname of his wife which also co-incidentally began with thealphabet ?L?. Many such persons are often seen around while few couldbe available upholding his or her identity.A Manipuri Meitei woman who is married to one of my Mao friendsserving in the Bank of Baroda seemed to have enjoyed life with herhusband and no doubt the child born by them will definitely be ?Maos?.So also is Bimola who married an Angami friend of mine in Kohimavillage. This is the true spirit.My Mao friend and Angami friend will never change their identitybecause they married a Manipuri woman. Likewise any child born ofManipuri women married to Sardarji, Bengali and other communities byno means become a Manipuri by blood.We don?t adopt the system of the distinguished tribes in Meghalayawhere women have to decide the fate of the husband. This is nothingrelated to the communal ethos or Manipuri chauvinism. This is simplythe question of identity.However one of my friends who was serving in Nagaland, Ibohal, who hadmarried an Angami lady is of different character. His wife will alwaysdress in Manipuri attire and speak polished Manipuri and learning theway of the Manipuris. His effort to make his wife speak the Manipurilanguage in a Nagamese and English spoken land was never a mater ofjoke.On the part of the wife she never hesitates to become the mostunderstanding ?better half? of her husband. Moreover following thefootprints of the husband and converting herself to the community towhich her husband belongs never contradicts the law of the land. Butsuch people come very few and far between.In Manipur we have the example of Banuo Koijam, otherwise the betterhalf of our Ex-Chief Minister Radhabinod Koijam, she can compete wellwith the most orthodox Meitei ladies when it comes to maintaining andsharing her husband's public life.Sometimes I am bemused when the Keralites lit up the light of ?Onamfestival?. People from every walk of life in Kerala celebrate it infull spirit. The same is being practiced elsewhere in the worldwherever Keralites inhabit. They all gather in a joyous festive moodkeeping aside the religious differences.When the ?Gan-ngai festival? season comes around, the Kabui communitycelebrate the festival welcoming one and all whether one is aChristian or a non-Christian. Sekreni the festival of the Angamis andChakhesang and Motsu the festival of Aos are age-old traditionalfestivals.All the Nagas had been observing such festivals since time immemorialmuch before Nagas embraced Christianity and it still continues. Theynever despised this colorful festival after they became Christians.Unfortunately any Meitei when he becomes a Christian, (s)he despisesUamang Lai Haraoba of Manipur and will disassociate himself from allthe Meitei cultural and traditional rituals as a rule. Very few maycome out to contradict it.The conversion of religion is something, which happens for one, lovethe doctrine and scripture of the religion and it is my humble opinionthat it has nothing to do with one?s origin and community.When the Japanese embrace Christianity, they proudly stand in theirpositions and exclaim, ?We will be Japanese Christians not AmericanChristians?. Unfortunately this spirit and sense of oneness doesn?tflow in the mind and body of those who had opted different religionsand settled elsewhere far from the memories of truth.When the cult of Hinduism arrived at this religiously fertile land andwhen the Manipuri scriptures (Puyas) were burnt, Manipuris seemed tohave fully converted into Hinduism. We surrendered everything to thenew religion and everybody assumed Hindu names and titles.Such practice has not only sapped the vitality of the people ofManipur but it has also seriously blurred their future politically andidentity aspects. Such unfortunate systems had not occurred to otherStates in India when the people of certain States converted to thereligion they loved, but never changed their traditional names.Nevertheless when any of the Manipuri Meiteis convert himself orherself into Christianity, it has become a rule to change his/her nametoo. When Nonglenba was baptized recently, he has since then became toknown as Brother Mark. I wonder why he can?t still remain as Nonglenbadespite his conversion to the religion he likes.However Nancy MacCradle Maybe, widow of Jupiter Yambem who perished inthe most horrifying attack at the World Trade Center in New York,heralded a new message to the world communities in large and Manipurisin particular.In her short and impromptu speech in a simple inaugural function of ?Jupiter Yambem Center? at Paona Bazaar on September 11, 2002, sheasserted ?I wanted to bring my son Santi (Chinglai Lakpa) to Imphalfrequently so that he can keep in touch with his father's roots?.I wonder why Nancy doesn?t wish to erase the memory of Manipur fromher son and let her son grow up as a proud American? What made herthink to bring her son from a far distant place like America toManipur every year only to impart to her son the ?Manipuris way oflife? and its tradition and culture?This remains a trillion-dollar question to us and especially for theManipuris who bade adieu to the society of Manipur and want to lead adifferent life of their own.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Armed Forces Special Powers Act:A study in National Security tyrannyIntroductionHistorical BackgroundThe Act and its provisionsLegal AnalysisConclusionsRecommendations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. INTRODUCTIONThe Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is one of themore draconian legislations that the Indian Parliament has passed inits 45 years of Parliamentary history. Under this Act, all securityforces are given unrestricted and unaccounted power to carry out theiroperations, once an area is declared disturbed. Even a non-commissioned officer is granted the right to shoot to kill based onmere suspicion that it is necessary to do so in order to "maintain thepublic order".

The AFSPA gives the armed forces wide powers to shoot, arrest andsearch, all in the name of "aiding civil power." It was first appliedto the North Eastern states of Assam and Manipur and was amended in1972 to extend to all the seven states in the north- eastern region ofIndia. They are Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh,Mizoram and Nagaland, also known as the "seven sisters". Theenforcement of the AFSPA has resulted in innumerable incidents ofarbitrary detention, torture, rape, and looting by security personnel.This legislation is sought to be justified by the Government of India,on the plea that it is required to stop the North East states fromseceeding from the Indian Union. There is a strong movement for self-determination which precedes the formation of the Indian Union.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDAs the great Himalayan range dividing South and Central Asia runs downthe east, it takes a southward curve and splits into lower hillranges. The hills are punctuated by valleys and the valleys are washedby the rivers that drain into to the Bay of Bengal. Waves of peoplesettled in these blue hills and green valleys at various times inhistory. They brought with them cultures and traditions. The newinteracted with the old and evolved into the unique cultural mosaicthat characterizes the region.

Through the centuries, these hills and valleys have bridged South,South East, and Central Asia. On today's geo-political map, a largepart of the original region constitutes the seven states of theRepublic of India, but its political, economic and socio-culturalsystems have always been linked with South East Asia. The great Hinduand Muslim empires that reigned over the Indian sub-continent neverextended east of the Bhramaputra river.

India's British colonizers were the first to break this barrier. Inthe early 19th century, they moved in to check the Burmese expansioninto today's Manipur and Assam. The British, with the help of the thenManipur King, Gambhir Singh, crushed the Burmese imperialist dream andthe treaty of Yandabo was signed in 1828. Under this treaty, Assambecame a part of British India and the British continued to influencethe political affairs of the region.

This undue interference eventually led to the bloody Anglo- Manipuriconflict of 1891. The British reaffirmed their position but werecognizant of the ferocious spirit of independence of these people anddid not administer directly but only through the King.

It was during the Second World War, when the Japanese tried to enterthe Indian sub-continent through this narrow corridor, that thestrategic significance of the region to the Indian armed forces wasrealised. With the bombing of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, adisenchanted Japanese had to retreat from Imphal and Kohima fronts,however the importance of control over the region subsequentlyremained a priority for the Government of India.

With the end of the war, the global political map was changed overnight. As the British were preparing to leave Asia, the PoliticalDepartment of the British Government planned to carve out a bufferstate consisting of the Naga Hills, Mikir Hills, Sadiya Area, BaliparaTract, Manipur, Lushai Hills, Khasi and Hills in Assam, as well as theChin Hills and the hills of northern Burma. The impending departure ofthe British created confusion and turmoil over how to fill thepolitical vacuum they would leave behind. Ultimately, the variousterritories were parceled out to Nehru's India, Jinnah's Pakistan,Aung Sang's Burma and Mao's China according to strategic requirements.As expected, there were some rumblings between the new Asiatic powerson who should get how much - India and Burma over Kabow valley, Indiaand East Pakistan over Chittagong Hill Tracts, and India and Chinaover the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), present day ArunachalPradesh.

Compromises were made, and issues were finally settled in distantcapitals, to the satifaction of the new rulers. The people who hadbeen dwelling in these hills and valleys for thousands of years weresystematically excluded from the consultation process. The Indianshare of the British colonial cake in this region constitutes thepresent "Seven Sisters" states of the North-East.

Over the years, thanks to the British, the advent of western educationand contact with new ideas brought about the realization that the oldways had to give way to the new. Indigenous movements evolved as thepeople aspired to a new social and political order. For example, inthe ancient Kingdom of Manipur, under the charismatic leadership ofHijam Irabot, a strong popular democratic movement against feudalismand colonialism was raging. After the departure of the British, theKingdom of Manipur was reconstituted as a constitutional monarchy onmodern lines by passing the Manipur Constitution Act, 1947.

Elections were held under the new constitution. A legislative assemblywas formed. In 1949, Mr V P Menon, a senior representative of theGovernment of India, invited the King to a meeting on the pretext ofdiscussing the deteriorating law and order situation in the state atShillong. Upon his arrival, the King was allegedly forced to signunder duress the merger agreement. The agreement was never ratified inthe Manipur Legislative Assembly. Rather, the Assembly was dissolvedand Manipur was kept under the charge of a Chief Commissioner. Therewere protests, but the carrot-and-stick policy launched by the IndianGovernment successfully suppressed any opposition.

The Naga MovementAt the beginning of the century, the inhabitants of the Naga Hills,which extend across the Indo-Burmese border, came together under thesingle banner of Naga National Council (NNC), aspiring for a commonhomeland and self-governance. As early as 1929, the NNC petitioned theSimon Commission, which was examining the feasibility of future ofself-governance of India. The Naga leaders were adamantly againstIndian rule over their people once the British pulled out of theregion. Mahatma Gandhi publicly announced that the Nagas had everyright to be independent. His assertion was based on his belief in non-violence, he did not believe in the use of force or an unwillingunion.

Under the Hydari Agreement signed between NNC and Britishadministration, Nagaland was granted protected status for ten years,after which the Nagas would decide whether they should stay in theUnion or not. However, shortly after the British withdrew, independentIndia proclaimed the Naga Territory as part and parcel of the newRepublic.

The NNC proclaimed Nagaland's independence. In retaliation, Indianauthorities arrested the Naga leaders. An armed struggle ensued andthere were large casualties on either side. The Armed Forces SpecialPowers Act is the product of this tension.

In 1975, some Naga leaders held talks with the Government of Indiawhich resulted in what is known as the Shillong Accord. The Nagaleaders who did not agree with the Shillong accord formed the NationalSocialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and continue to fight for whatthey call," Naga sovereignty".

Problems of IntegrationMuch of this historical bloodshed could have been avoided if the newIndia had lived up to the democratic principles enshrined in itsConstitution and respected the rights of the nationalities it hadtaken within its borders. But in the over-zealous efforts to integratethese people into the "national mainstream", based on the dominantbrahminical Aryan culture, much destruction has been done to theindigenous populations.

Culturally, the highly caste ridden, feudal society is totallyincompatible with the ethics of North-East cultures which are by andlarge egalitarian. To make matters even worse, the Indian leadersfound it useful to club these ethnic groups with the adivasis(indigenous peoples) of the sub-continent, dubbing them "scheduledtribes". As a result, in the casteist Indian social milieu, indigenouspeoples are stigmatized by higher castes.

The languages of the North-East are of the Tibeto- Chinese familyrather than the Indo-Aryan or Dravidian. Until the recent EighthSchedule of the Indian Constitution, none of the Tibeto- Chineselanguages were recognized as Indian languages. The predominantlymongoloid features of the people of the North-East is another barrierto cultural assimilation.

Politically dependent, the North East is being economicallyundermined; the traditional trade routes with South East Asia andBangladesh have been closed. It was kept out of the Government ofIndia's massive infrastructural development in the first few five-year-plans. Gradually, the region has become the Indian capitalist'shinterland, where local industries have been reduced to nothing andthe people are now entirely dependent on goods and businesses ownedpredominantly by those from the Indo- Gangetic plains. The economicstrings of this region are controlled by these, in many cases,unscrupulous traders.

All the states of the North-East are connected to India by the"chicken's neck", a narrow corridor between Bangladesh and Bhutan. Atpartition, the area was cut off from the nearest port of Chittagong,in what is now Bangladesh, reducing traffic to and from the region toa trickle. The states in the region are largely unconnected to India'vast rail system.

India freely exploits the natural resources of the North-East. Assamproduces one-fourth of all the petroleum for India, yet it isprocessed outside of Assam so the state does not receive the revenues.Manipur is 22% behind the national average for infrastructuraldevelopment, and the entire North-Eastern region is 30% behind therest of India.

Observers have pointed out that "...it is clear that in the NorthEast, insurgency and underdevelopment have been closely linked; insuch a situation strong-arm tactics will only help to further alienatethe people."

The shifting demographic balance due to large-scale immigration fromwithin and outside the country is another source of tension. Theindigenous people fear that they will be outnumbered by outsiders intheir own land. Laborers from Bihar and Bengal who live under rigidlyfeudal, casteist socio-economic conditions in their states are readyto do all kinds of menial jobs at much lower wages. As they pour in,more and more local laborers are being edged out of their jobs.Illegal immigration from Bangladesh and Nepal is also percieved as athreat. In Tripura, the indigenous population has been reduced to amere 28% of the total population of the state because of large scaleimmigration from then East Pakistan and now Bangladesh.

In Assam, a similar fear of " immigrant invasion" was at the root of astudent movement in the early eighties. The student leaders formed apolitical party called the Assam Gana Parisad (AGP) and contestedstate elections and won. In 1984, the Assam Accord was signed with theCentral Government. However, the provisions of the Accord were neverimplemented. The failure of the AGP to bring about change in the stateof Assam fostered the growth of the armed and overtly seccessionistUnited Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA).

MizoramIn the Lushai hills of Assam in the early sixties, a famine broke out.A relief team cried out for help from the Government of India. Butthere was little help. The relief team organized themselves into theMizo National Front (MNF) and called for an armed struggle, " toliberate Mizoram from Indian colonialiasm." In February 1966, armedmilitant groups captured the town of Aizawl and took possession of allgovernment offices. It took the Indian army one week to recapture thetown. The army responded viciously with air raids. This is the onlyplace in India where the Indian Security Forces actually aeriallybombed its own civilian population. The armed forces compelled peopleto leave their homes and dumped them on the roadside to set up newvillages, so that the armed forces would be able to better controlthem. This devastated the structure of Mizo society. In 1986, the MizoAccord was signed between the MNF and the Government of India. Thisaccord was identical to the Shilong Accord made with the Nagasearlier. The MNF agreed to work within the Indian Constitution and torenounce violence.

The Government of India's primary interest in the North East wasstrategic, and so was its response to the problems. A series ofrepressive laws were passed by the Government of India in order todeal with this uprising. In 1953, the Assam Maintenance of PublicOrder (Autonomous District) Regulation Act was passed. It wasapplicable to the then Naga Hills and Tuensang districts. It empoweredthe Governor to impose collective fines, prohibit public meetings andand detain anybody without a warrant.

On 22 May 1958, a mere 12 days after the Budget Session of Parliamentwas over, the Armed Forces (Assam-Manipur) Special Powers Ordinancewas passed. A bill was introduced in the Monsoon session of Parliamentthat year. Amongst those who cautioned against giving such blanketpowers to the Army included the then Deputy Chairman of the RajyaSabha, (Upper House of the Indian Parliament), Mr P N Sapru. In abrief discussion that lasted for three hours in the Lok Sabha and forfour hours in the Rajya Sabha, Parliament approved the Armed Forces(Assam- Manipur) Special Powers Act with retrospective from 22 May1958.

3. THE ACT AND ITS PROVISIONSSection 1: This section states the name of the Act and the areas towhich it extends (Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura,Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram).

Section 2: This section sets out the definition of the Act, but leavesmuch un-defined. Under part (a) in the 1972 version, the armed forceswere defined as "the military and Air Force of the Union sooperating". In the 1958 version of the Act the definition was of the"military forces and the air forces operating as land forces". In theLok Sabha Debates which led to the passing of the original Act, MrNaushir Bharucha commented, "that probably means that the Governmentvery mercifully has not permitted the air forces to shoot or strafethe area ... or to bomb." The Minister of Home Affairs did not confirmthis interpretation, but certainly "acting as land forces" should ruleout the power to resort to aerial bombardment. Nevertheless, in 1966,the Air Force in Mizoram did resort to aerial bombardment.

Section 2(b) defines a "disturbed area" as any area declared as suchunder Clause 3 (see discussion below). Section 2(c) states that allother words not defined in the AFSPA have the meanings assigned tothem in the Army Act of 1950.

Section 3: This section defines "disturbed area" by stating how anarea can be declared disturbed. It grants the power to declare an areadisturbed to the Central Government and the Governor of the State, butdoes not describe the circumstances under which the authority would bejustified in making such a declaration. Rather, the AFSPA onlyrequires that such authority be "of the opinion that whole or parts ofthe area are in a dangerous or disturbed condition such that the useof the Armed Forces in aid of civil powers is necessary." Thevagueness of this definition was challenged in Indrajit Barua v. Stateof Assam case. The court decided that the lack of precision to thedefinition of a disturbed area was not an issue because the governmentand people of India understand its meaning. However, since thedeclaration depends on the satisfaction of the Government official,the declaration that an area is disturbed is not subject to judicialreview. So in practice, it is only the government's understandingwhich classifies an area as disturbed. There is no mechanism for thepeople to challenge this opinion. Strangely, there are acts whichdefine the term more concretely. In the Disturbed Areas (SpecialCourts) Act, 1976, an area may be declared disturbed when "a StateGovernment is satisfied that (i) there was, or (ii) there is, in anyarea within a State extensive disturbance of the public peace andtranquility, by reason of differences or disputes between members ofdifferent religions, racial, language, or regional groups or castes orcommunities, it may ... declare such area to be a disturbed area." Thelack of precision in the definition of a disturbed area under theAFSPA demonstrates that the government is not interested in puttingsafeguards on its application of the AFSPA.

The 1972 amendments to the AFSPA extended the power to declare an areadisturbed to the Central Government. In the 1958 version of the AFSPAonly the state governments had this power. In the 1972 Lok Sabhadebates it was argued that extending this power to the CentralGovernment would take away the State's authority. In the 1958 debatesthe authority and power of the states in applying the AFSPA was a keyissue. The Home Minister had argued that the AFSPA broadened states'power because they could call in the military whenever they chose. The1972 amendment shows that the Central Government is no longerconcerned with the state's power. Rather, the Central Government nowhas the ability to overrule the opinion of a state governor anddeclare an area disturbed. This happened in Tripura, when the CentralGovernment declared Tripura a disturbed area, over the opposition ofthe State Government.

In the 1972 Lok Sabha debates, Mr S D Somasundaram pointed out thatthere was no need to extend this power to the Central Government,since the President had "the power to intervene in a disturbed Stateat any time" under the Constitution. This point went unheeded and theCentral Government retains the power to apply the AFSPA to the areasit wishes in the Northeast.

Section 4: This section sets out the powers granted to the militarystationed in a disturbed area. These powers are granted to thecommissioned officer, warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer,only a jawan (private) does not have these powers. The Section allowsthe armed forces personnel to use force for a variety of reasons.

The army can shoot to kill, under the powers of section 4(a), for thecommission or suspicion of the commission of the following offenses:acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being inforce in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or morepersons, carrying weapons, or carrying anything which is capable ofbeing used as a fire-arm or ammunition. To justify the invocation ofthis provision, the officer need only be "of the opinion that it isnecessary to do so for the maintenance of public order" and only give"such due warning as he may consider necessary".

The army can destroy property under section 4(b) if it is an armsdump, a fortified position or shelter from where armed attacks aremade or are suspected of being made, if the structure is used as atraining camp, or as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders.

The army can arrest anyone without a warrant under section 4(c) whohas committed, is suspected of having committed or of being about tocommit, a cognisable offense and use any amount of force "necessary toeffect the arrest".

Under section 4(d), the army can enter and search without a warrant tomake an arrest or to recover any property, arms, ammunition orexplosives which are believed to be unlawfully kept on the premises.This section also allows the use of force necessary for the search.

Section 5: This section states that after the military has arrestedsomeone under the AFSPA, they must hand that person over to thenearest police station with the "least possible delay". There is nodefinition in the act of what constitutes the least possible delay.Some case-law has established that 4 to 5 days is too long. But sincethis provision has been interpreted as depending on the specificscircumstances of each case, there is no precise amount of time afterwhich the section is violated. The holding of the arrested person,without review by a magistrate, constitutes arbitrary detention.

Section 6: This section establishes that no legal proceeding can bebrought against any member of the armed forces acting under the AFSPA,without the permission of the Central Government. This section leavesthe victims of the armed forces abuses without a remedy.

4. LEGAL ANALYSISThe Armed Forces Special Powers Act contravenes both Indian andInternational law standards. This was exemplified when India presentedits second periodic report to the United Nations Human RightsCommittee in 1991. Members of the UNHRC asked numerous questions aboutthe validity of the AFSPA, questioning how the AFSPA could be deemedconstitutional under Indian law and how it could be justified in lightof Article 4 of the ICCPR. The Attorney General of India relied on thesole argument that the AFSPA is a necessary measure to prevent thesecession of the North Eastern states. He said that a response to thisagitation for secession in the North East had to be done on a "warfooting." He argued that the Indian Constitution, in Article 355, madeit the duty of the Central Government to protect the states frominternal disturbance, and that there is no duty under internationallaw to allow secession.

This reasoning exemplifies the vicious cycle which has been institutedin the North East due to the AFSPA. The use of the AFSPA pushes thedemand for more autonomy, giving the peoples of the North East morereason to want to secede from a state which enacts such powers and theagitation which ensues continues to justify the use of the AFSPA fromthe point of view of the Indian Government.

A) INDIAN LAWThere are several cases pending before the Indian Supreme Court whichchallenge the constitutionality of the AFSPA. Some of these cases havebeen pending for over nine years. Since the Delhi High Court found theAFSPA to be constitutional in the case of Indrajit Barua and theGauhati High court found this decision to be binding in People's Unionfor Democratic Rights, the only judicial way to repeal the act is forthe Supreme Court to declare the AFSPA unconstitutional.

It is extremely surprising that the Delhi High Court found the AFSPAconstitutional given the wording and application of the AFSPA. TheAFSPA is unconstitutional and should be repealed by the judiciary orthe legislature to end army rule in the North East.

Violation of Article 21 - Right to life

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life toall people. It reads, "No person shall be deprived of his life orpersonal liberty except according to procedure established by law."Judicial interpretation that "procedure established by law means a"fair, just and reasonable law" has been part of Indian jurisprudencesince the 1978 case of Maneka Gandhi. This decision overrules the 1950Gopalan case which had found that any law enacted by Parliament metthe requirement of "procedure established by law".

Under section 4(a) of the AFSPA, which grants armed forces personnelthe power to shoot to kill, the constitutional right to life isviolated. This law is not fair, just or reasonable because it allowsthe armed forces to use an excessive amount of force.

The offenses under section 4(a) are: "acting in contravention of anylaw or order for the time being in force in the disturbed areaprohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying ofweapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or fire-arms,ammunition or explosive substances". None of these offencesnecessarily involve the use of force. The armed forces are thusallowed to retaliate with powers which are grossly out of proportionwith the offence.

Justice requires that the use of force be justified by a need for self-defense and a minimum level of proportionality. As pointed out by theUN Human Rights Commission, since "assembly" is not defined, it couldwell be a lawful assembly, such as a family gathering, and since"weapon" is not defined it could include a stone. This shows how widethe interpretation of the offences may be, illustrating that the useof force is disproportionate and irrational.

Several incidents show how the Border Security Force (BSF) and armypersonnel abuse their powers in the North East. In April 1995, avillager in West Tripura was riding near a border outpost when asoldier asked him to stop. The villager did not stop and the soldiershot him dead. Even more grotesque were the killings in Kohima on 5March 1995. The Rastriya Rifles (National Rifles) mistook the sound ofa tyre burst from their own convoy as a bomb attack and began firingindiscriminately in the town. The Assam Rifles and the CRPF who werecamped two kilometers away heard the gunshots and also began firing.The firing lasted for more than one hour, resulting in the death ofseven innocent civilians, 22 were also seriously injured. Among thosekilled were two girls aged 3 1/2 and 8 years old. The injured alsoincluded 7 minors. Mortars were used even though using mortars in acivilian area is prohibited under army rules.

This atrocity demonstrates the level of tension prevalent in the NorthEast. For a tire burst to be mistaken for a bomb proves that the armedforces are perpetually under stress and live under a state of siege.

In the Indrajit Barua case, the Delhi High Court found that the statehas the duty to assure the protection of rights under Article 21 tothe largest number of people. Couched in the rhetoric of the need toprotect the "greater good", it is clear that the Court did not feelthat Article 21 is a fundamental right for the people of Assam. TheCourt stated, "If to save hundred lives one life is put in peril or ifa law ensures and protects the greater social interest then such lawwill be a wholesome and beneficial law although it may infringe theliberty of some individuals."

This directly contradicts Article 14 of the Indian Constitution whichguarantees equality before the law. This article guarantees that "theState shall not deny to any person equality before the law or theequal protection of the laws within the territory of India." The AFSPAis in place in limited parts of India. Since the people residing inareas declared "disturbed" are denied the protection of the right tolife, denied the protections of the Criminal Procedure Code andprohibited from seeking judicial redress, they are also deniedequality before the law. Residents of non-disturbed areas enjoy theprotections guaranteed under the Constitution, whereas the residentsof the Northeast live under virtual army rule. Residents of the restof the Union of India are not obliged to sacrifice theirConstitutional rights in the name of the "greater good".

Protection against arrest and detention - Article 22

Article 22 of the Indian Constitution states that "(1) No person whois arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, assoon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be deniedthe right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner ofhis choice. (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custodyshall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period oftwenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for thejourney from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and nosuch person shall be detained in custody beyond the said periodwithout the authority of a magistrate." The remaining sections of theArticle deal with limits on these first two sections in the case ofpreventive detention laws. On its face, the AFSPA is not a preventivedetention law therefore the safeguards of sections (1) and (2) must beguaranteed to people arrested under the AFSPA.

Section (2) of Article 22 was the subject of much debate during theframing of the Indian Constitution. There was argument over whetherthe time limit should be specified or whether the words "with theleast possible delay" should be used. Dr Amedkar, one of the principalframers of the Indian Constitution argued that "with the leastpossible delay" would actually result in the person being held for ashorter period of time, whereas "twenty- four hours" would result inthe person being held for the maximum time of twenty-four hours. Theapplication of these terms has since shown that a specified timeperiod constitutes a greater safeguard. Under the AFSPA, the use of"least possible delay" language has allowed the security forces tohold people for days and months at a time. A few habeas corpus casesin which the court did find the delay to be excessive are indicativeof the abuses which are occurring in practice. It should be noted thathabeas corpus cases are only filed for those who have access tolawyers and the court. In all the seven states of the North East onlythe Guwhati High Court bench in Assam can hear habeas corpus cases. Soalthough in the two following cases the time of delay in handing overthe arrested person was found excessive, it can only be imagined whattypes of abuses occur in the states of Manipur and Nagaland where thepeople do not have access to the court. In Nungshitombi Devi v.Rishang Keishang, CM Manipur, (1982) 1 GLR 756, the petitioner'shusband was arrested by CRPF on 10 January 1981, and was still missingon 22 February 1981. He had been arrested under AFSPA Section 4(c).The court found this delay to have been too long and unjustified, evenunder Section 5 of the AFSPA. In Civil Liberties Organisation (CLAHRO)v. PL Kukrety, (1988) 2 GLR 137, people arrested in Oinam were heldfor five days before being handed over to magistrates. The court foundthis to be an unjustified delay.

In its application, the AFSPA does lead to arbitrary detention. If theAFSPA were defended on the grounds that it is a preventive detentionlaw, it would still violate Article 22 of the Constitution. Preventivedetention laws can allow the detention of the arrested person for upto three months. Under 22(4) any detention longer than three monthsmust be reviewed by an Advisory Board. Moreover, under 22(5) theperson must be told the grounds of their arrest. Under section 4(c) ofthe AFSPA a person can be arrested by the armed forces without awarrant and on the mere suspicion that they are going to commit anoffence. The armed forces are not obliged to communicate the groundsfor the arrest. There is also no advisory board in place to reviewarrests made under the AFSPA. Since the arrest is without a warrant itviolates the preventive detention sections of article 22.

The case of Luithukla v. Rishang Keishing, (1988) 2 GLR 159, a habeascorpus case, exemplifies the total lack of restraint on the armedforces when carrying out arrests. The case was brought to ascertainthe whereabouts of a man who had been arrested five years previouslyby the army. The court found that the man had been detained by thearmy and that the forces had mistaken their role of "aiding civilpower". The court said that the army may not act independently of thedistrict administration. Repeatedly, the Guwahati High Court has toldthe army to comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), butthere are is no enforcement of these rulings.

Army officers have accused High Court judges of weakening militarypowers in the North East, exemplifying that the armed forces are notinterested in complying with civil law standards. Any attempt by thecourts to oblige compliance with police procedure is ignored. (seefurther section on the lack of independence of the judiciary)

In the habeas corpus case of Bacha Bora v. State of Assam, (1991) 2GLR 119, the petition was denied because a later arrest by the civilpolice was found to be legal. However, in a discussion of the AFSPA,the court analyzed Section 5 (turn the arrested person over to thenearest magistrate "with least possible delay"). The court did not useArticle 22 of the Constitution to find that this should be less thantwenty-four hours, but rather said that "least possible delay" isdefined by the particular circumstances of each case. In this case,the army had provided no justification for the two week delay, when apolice station was nearby, so section 5 was violated. Nevertheless,this leaves open the interpretation that circumstances could justify adelay of 5 days or more.

The Indian Criminal Procedure Code ("CrPC")

The CrPC establishes the procedure police officers are to follow forarrests, searches and seizures, a procedure which the army and otherpara- military are not trained to follow. Therefore when the armedforces personnel act in aid of civil power, it should be clarifiedthat they may not act with broader power than the police and thatthese troops must receive specific training in criminal procedure.

In explaining the AFSPA bill in the Lok Sabha in 1958, the Union HomeMinister stated that the Act was subject to the provisions of theConstitution and the CrPC. He said "these persons [military personnel]have the authority to act only within the limits that have beenprescribed generally in the CrPC or in the Constitution." If this isthe case, then why was the AFSPA not drafted to say "use of minimumforce" as done in the CrPC? If the government truly means to have thearmed forces comply with criminal procedure, than the AFSPA shouldhave a specific clause enunciating this compliance. Further it shouldalso train the armed forces in this procedure.

The CrPC has a section on the maintenance of public order, Chapter X,which provides more safeguards than the AFSPA. Section 129 in thatchapter allows for the dispersal of an assembly by use of civil force.The section empowers an Executive Magistrate, officer-in-charge of apolice station or any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector to disperse such an assembly. It is interesting to comparethis section with the powers the army has to disperse assemblies undersection 4(a) of the Act. The CrPC clearly delineates the ranks whichcan disperse such an assembly, whereas the Act grants the power to usemaximum force to even to non commissioned officers. Moreover, the CrPCdoes not state that force to the extent of causing death can be usedto disperse an assembly.

Sections 130 and 131 of the same chapter sets out the conditions underwhich the armed forces may be called in to disperse an assembly. Thesetwo sections have several safeguards which are lacking in the Act.Under section 130, the armed forces officers are to follow thedirectives of the Magistrate and use as little force as necessary indoing so. Under 131, when no Executive Magistrate can be contacted,the armed forces may disperse the assembly but if it becomes possibleto contact an Executive Magistrate at any point, the armed forces mustdo so. Section 131 only gives the armed forces the power to arrest andconfine. Moreover, it is only commissioned or gazetted officers whomay give the command to disperse such an assembly, whereas in theAFSPA even non-commissioned officers are given this power. The AFSPAgrants wider powers than the CrPC for dispersal of an assembly.

Moreover, dispersal of assemblies under Chapter X of the CrPC isslightly more justifiable than dispersal under Section 4(a) of theAFSPA. Sections 129-131 refer to the unlawful assemblies as ones which"manifestly endanger" public security. Under the AFSPA the assembly isonly classified as "unlawful" leaving open the possibility thatpeaceful assemblies can be dispersed by use of force.

Chapter V of the CrPC sets out the arrest procedure the police are tofollow. Section 46 establishes the way in which arrests are to bemade. It is only if the person attempts to evade arrest that thepolice officer may use "all means necessary to effect the arrest."However, sub-section (3) limits this use of force by stipulating thatthis does not give the officer the right to cause the death of theperson, unless they are accused of an offence punishable by death orlife imprisonment. This power is already too broad. It allows thepolice to use more force than stipulated in the UN Code of Conduct forLaw Enforcement Officials (see section on International law below).Yet the AFSPA is even more excessive. Section 4(a) lets the armedforces kill a person who is not suspected of an offence punishable bydeath or life imprisonment.

Under the Indian Penal Code, at Section 302, only murder is punishablewith death. Murder is not one of the offenses listed in section 4(a)of the AFSPA. Moreover the 4(a) offences are assembly of five or morepersons, the carrying of weapons, ammunition or explosive substances,none of which are punishable with life imprisonment under the IndianPenal Code. Under section 143 of the Penal Code, being a member of anunlawful assembly is punishable with imprisonment of up to six monthsand/or a fine. Even if the person has joined such unlawful assemblyarmed with a deadly weapon, the maximum penalty is imprisonment fortwo years and a fine. Moreover, persisting or joining in an unlawfulassembly of five or more persons is also punishable with six monthsimprisonment, or a fine, or both. The same offence committed bysomeone in a disturbed area under the AFSPA is punishable with death.This again violates the Constitutional right to equality before thelaw. Different standards of punishment are in place for the same actin different parts of the country, violating the equality standardsset out in the Constitution.

Supposedly the military do have instructions on the procedures theyare to follow when they act in aid of civil power. In People's Unionfor Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1991) 2 GLR 1, when thecourt reviewed the army's powers it referred to two sets ofinstructions issued to the military when acting in aid of civil power.The first was a 1969 pamphlet issued by the Government of India asguidance for military but it was confidential and the court was notallowed to review it. A 1973 basic book instructions for army actingin aid of civil power was also referred to in the case. In a personalmeeting with Justice Raghuvir, former Chief Justice of the GuwahatiHigh Court, and the Justice who wrote the opinion in People's Unionfor Democratic Rights, SAHRDC asked for details on the nature of theseinstructions. Justice Raghuvir told us that he was only able to see afew pages and that the whole booklet was not available to non-militarypersonnel. He believes that the military keeps these instructionmanuals confidential so that it can not be shown that the armed forcesfail to comply with their own standards. This is another example ofthe lack of judicial review and allows the armed forces to remainabove the law.

Military's Immunity / Lack of Remedies

The members of the Armed Forces in the whole of the Indian territoryare protected from arrest for anything done within the line ofofficial duty by Section 45 of the CrPC. Section 6 of the AFSPAprovides them with absolute immunity for all atrocities committedunder the AFSPA. A person wishing to file suit against a member of thearmed forces for abuses under the AFSPA must first seek the permissionof the Central Government.

In a report on the AFSPA to the UN Human Rights Committee in 1991,Nandita Haksar, a lawyer who has often petitioned the Guwahati HighCourt in cases related to the AFSPA, explains how in practice thisleaves the military's victims without a remedy. Firstly, there has notbeen a single case of any one seeking such permission to file a casein the North East. Given that the armed forces personnel conductthemselves as being above the law and the people are alienated fromthe state government, it is hardly surprising that no one wouldapproach Delhi for such permission. Secondly, when the armed forcesare tried in army courts, the public is not informed of theproceedings and the court martial judgments are not published. In ameeting with the government National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), arepresentative of SAHRDC was able to discuss cases where BSF and armedforces in Jammu and Kashmir were punished for abuses. Yet, the resultsof these trials were not published and the NHRC representative statedthat it would endanger the lives of the soldiers.

This section of the AFSPA was also reviewed in Indrajit Barua. TheHigh Court justified this provision on the grounds that it preventsthe filing of "frivolous claims". The court even said that thisprovision provides more safeguards, obviously confusing safeguards forthe military with safeguards for the victims of the military'sabuses.

Instances of human rights abuses by the army have shown that unlessthere is public accountability there is no incentive for the army tochange its conduct. This was exemplified in Burundi when securityforces killed 1,000 people in October 1991. Amnesty Internationalreported, "The failure to identify those responsible for human rightsviolations and bring them to justice has meant that members of thesecurity forces continue to believe that they are above the law andcan violate human rights with impunity." Without the transparency ofthe public accounting, it is impossible to be sure that perpetratorsare actually punished.

Habeas corpus cases have been the only remedy available for thosearrested under the AFSPA. A habeas corpus case forces the military orpolice to hand the person over to the court. This gives the arrestedperson some protection and it is in these cases that legal counselhave been able to make arguments challenging the AFSPA. However, ahabeas corpus case will not lead to the repeal of the act nor will itpunish particular officers who committed the abuses. Also, only peoplewho have access to lawyers will be able to file such a case.

Section 6 of the AFSPA thus suspends the Constitutional right to filesuit. Mr Mahanty raised this crucial argument in the first Lok Sabhadebate on the AFSPA in 1958. He said that Section 6 of the AFSPA"immediately takes away, abrogates, pinches, frustrates the right toconstitutional remedy which has been given in article 32(1) of theConstitution." This further shows that the AFSPA is more than anemergency provision because it is only in states of emergency thatthese rights can be constitutionally suspended.

Section 32(1) of the Constitution states that "the right to move theSupreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of therights conferred by this Part is guaranteed." In the ConstitutionalAssembly debates, Dr B R Ambedkar said, "If I was asked to name anyparticular article of the Constitution as the most important - anarticle without which this Constitution would be a nullity. I wouldnot refer to any other article except this one (Article 32). It is thevery soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it."

During the emergency in 1975 the right to file for writs of habeascorpus was suspended as ruled by the Supreme Court in A.D.M. v.Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521. The Emergency had been declaredunder Section 359 of the Constitution. This section has now beenamended, stating that the fundamental rights of section 20 and 21cannot be suspended, even in a state of emergency. Therefore, shouldan emergency be declared today, the right to file habeas corpus on thegrounds that the fundamental right to life has been denied should beallowed. Nevertheless, the 1975 case exemplifies the court's deferencefor the executive, even if it means a total suspension of individualliberty.

In the 1958 Lok Sabha, debate also occured about whether the right tofile suit was a guaranteed right under the Constitution. The Speakersaid, "Now who is to decide whether a right is one which has beenguaranteed under this article? (article 32) The Supreme Court willdecide it." Turning to this argument later, the Home Minister pointedout that under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil ProcedureCode that the Government's consent was already required before amember of the armed forces could be sued in connection with theirduties. This remains the case under both Codes today. Since, as seenabove, the Supreme Court so readily defers to the executive andlegislative branches, if the legislature does not pause to ask if aprovision is constitutional, should the court review it once thelegislature has passed it, it will most likely be deemedconstitutional.

The Army Act

The 1950 act was a revision of the 1911 Indian Army Act. One of thegoals of this revision was "to bridge the gap between the Army andcivil laws as far as possible in the matter of punishments ofoffenses." The High Courts of the country have a limited right tointerfere with the court-martial system. Court-martial proceedings donot have to satisfy Article 21 of the Constitution. In chapter five ofthe Army Act, the members of the services are granted privileges,including immunity from attachments and arrest for debt. The onlycivil acts committed by members of the army which are not triable bycourt-martial are murder or rape of a civilian, unless this was donewhile on active service. This means that soldiers operating under theAFSPA will, if tried at all, be tried by court-martial, leaving nocivil law remedy for the victims. Section 6 of the AFSPA only furtherreinforces the army's immunity.

States of Emergency

The declaration that an area is disturbed essentially amounts todeclaring a state of emergency but by-passes the Constitutionalsafeguards. The point that this bill invokes a state of emergency wasraised immediately by Mr Mahanty (Dhenkanal) in the 1958 Lok Sabhadebates. He said the Assembly could not proceed if Section 352(1) ofthe Constitution was not fulfilled. In response, Mr K C Pant, thenHome Minister, attempted to argue that the powers granted under theAFSPA do not resemble a state of emergency. He said that in anemergency fundamental rights can be abrogated and that the AFSPA doesnot abrogate those rights. But under Section 4(a) the right to life isclearly violated. An officer shooting to kill, because he is of theopinion that it is necessary, does not conform, even prima facie, withthe Article 21 Constitutional requirement that the right to lifecannot be abridged except according to procedure established by law.The Home Minister said the AFSPA powers stem rather from Article 355of the Constitution, which gives the Central Government authority toprotect the States against external aggression.

Dr Krishnaswanmi (Chingleput) also made the argument that the AFSPAwas outside the powers granted in the Constitution, since it wasdeclaring a state of emergency without following the Constitutionalprovisions for such a declaration. He argued that this Bill would takeaway the State's power by bringing in the military. The Speakerresponded that this did not take away the State's power, rather itgranted the States more power because it allowed them to decide to"hand over thoroughly, entirely and completely to the Armed Forces".This argument is circular - the Speaker was saying that the States aregiven more power because they are now able to freely hand over theirpower. And because this was explained as granting power to the States,no Presidential proclamation was necessary (the proclamation is onlymade when the State powers are restricted). So the emergencyprovisions in the Constitution were cleverly by-passed.

In a state of emergency, fundamental rights may be suspended underArticle 359, since the 1978 amendment to this article, rights underArticles 20 and 21 may not be suspended. As shown above, the AFSPAresults in the suspension of Article 21 right to life, therefore AFSPAis more draconian than emergency rule. Emergency rule can only bedeclared for a specified period of time, and the President'sproclamation of emergency must be reviewed by Parliament. The AFSPA isin place for an indefinite period of time and there is no legislativereview.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted in its report of 17December 1993, that states of emergency tend to be a "fruitful sourceof arbitrary arrests." In its report of 21 December 1994, the WorkingGroup concluded that preventive detention is "facilitated andaggravated by several factors such as ... exercise of the powersspecific to states of emergency without a formal declaration, non-observance of the principle of proportionality between the gravity ofthe measures taken and the situation concerned, too vague a definitionof offenses against State security, and the existence of special oremergency jurisdictions." This describes exactly the situation underthe AFSPA. The AFSPA grants state of emergency powers withoutdeclaring an emergency as prescribed in the Constitution. The measurestaken by the military outweigh the situation in the North East,notably the power to shoot to kill. The offences are not clearlydefined, since all of the Section 4 offences are judged subjectivelyby the military personnel. And the AFSPA is a "special jurisdiction"provision.

B) INTERNATIONAL LAWUnder relevant international human rights and humanitarian lawstandards there is no justification for such an act as the AFSPA. TheAFSPA, by its form and in its application, violates the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights (the "UDHR"), the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights (the "ICCPR"), the Convention AgainstTorture, the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the UNBody of Principles for Protection of All Persons Under any form ofDetention, and the UN Principles on Effective Prevention andInvestigation of Extra- legal and summary executions.

A UDHR argument would just be repetitive with ICCPR so SAHRDC has notdone it but the UDHR articles which the AFSPA violates are thefollowing: 1 - Free and Equal Dignity and rights, 2 - Non-discrimination, 3 - Life, liberty, security of person, 5 - no torture,7 - equality before the law, 8 - effective remedy, 9 - no arbitraryarrest, 17 - property.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR")

India signed the ICCPR in 1978, taking on the responsibility ofsecuring the rights guaranteed by the Covenant to all its citizens.The rights enunciated by the ICCPR are those which must be guaranteedduring times of peace by the member states. In times of publicemergency, the ICCPR foresees that some rights may have to besuspended. However, the ICCPR remains operative even under suchcircumstances since certain rights are non- derogable. The AFSPAviolates both derogable and non-derogable rights.

This first article of the ICCPR states that all people have the rightto self-determination. As discussed previously, the AFSPA is a tool instifling the self-determination aspirations of the indigenous peoplesof the North East.

Article 2 imposes an obligation on the states to ensure that allindividuals enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Covenant. This includesan obligation to provide a remedy for those whose rights are violated.When India gave its second periodic report to the UN Human RightsCommittee in March 1991, members of the Committee pointed out that theAFSPA violates this right because article 2 foresees more than just alegal system which provides such remedies, but requires that such asystem work on the practical level.

Article 4 of the Covenant governs the suspension of some of theCovenant's rights. Derogation of the ICCPR has three conditions.Firstly, it is only "in time of public emergency which threatens thelife of the nation and the existence of which is officiallyproclaimed" that states may derogate from their obligations under theICCPR. Also, such derogation must be "strictly required by theexigencies of the situation" and cannot be inconsistent with otherinternational law obligations nor "involve discrimination solely onthe ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin."The AFSPA has been enacted without such an official proclamation ofemergency and goes beyond the requirements of the situation. Moreover,the fact that the AFSPA targets the population of the North East showsthat it does discriminate on the basis of social origin. Secondly,there can be no derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2),11, 15, 16 and 18. As discussed below, the AFSPA violates three ofthese, article 6 guaranteeing the right to life, article 7 prohibitingtorture and article 8 prohibiting forced labour. Thirdly, any statewhich derogates from the ICCPR obligations must inform the otherstates party to the Covenant. India has not met this obligation asregards the AFSPA.

The AFSPA comes within the purview of article 4 as understood by theHuman Rights Committee. The members found that since it "enables thearmy to supplement ... [the] civil authorities [in] powers of arrest,powers of search" the AFSPA is the equivalent of emergencylegislation. Moreover, a committee member stated that the AFSPA hadactually created a "continuous state of emergency" since it has beenin application since 1958.

The greatest outrage of the AFSPA under both Indian and internationallaw is the violation of the right to life. This comes under Article 6of the ICCPR, and it is a non-derogable right. This means nosituation, or state of emergency, or internal disturbance, can justifythe suspension of this right. Committee members insisted on thisparticular point in regards to the AFSPA. They found that the powersto kill under the Act are simply too broad. As pointed out by a memberof the committee, the offences under Section 4(a) for which thesoldier may shoot do not threaten the soldier. The Code of Conduct forLaw Enforcement Officials only foresees the use of deadly force whenthe officer is threatened with force. Under Section 4(a) of the AFSPA,the officer can shoot when there is an unlawful assembly, not definedas threatening, or when the person has or is suspected of having aweapon. Since "weapon" is defined as anything "capable of being usedas a weapon", a committee member pointed out that this could eveninclude a stone, further bringing out the lack of proportionalitybetween the offence and the use of force by the army.

The armed forces in the North East have systematically tortured thepeople they arrested under the AFSPA. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibitstorture and this also is a non-derogable right. Moreover, theprohibition against torture is a "norm of customary law". Under theUDHR, torture is defined as "any act by which severe pain orsuffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted byor at the instigation of a public official on a person for suchpurposes as obtaining from him or a third person information orconfession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspectedof having committed, or intimidating him or other person."

During Operation Bluebird, the Assam Rifles committed gross abuses ofthis right. The Operation was launched in the wake of an attack on anAssam Rifles outpost in Oinam, a village in Manipur. The attack isbelieved to have been carried out by the NSCN. The armed forcesretaliated by perpetuating atrocities on the village people of Oinam.The Amnesty International report found that more than 300 villagersclaimed they were beaten, "some torture victims were left for dead ...others were reportedly subjected to other forms of torture includinginserting chili powder into sensitive parts of the body, being givenelectric shocks by means of a hand operated dynamo ... or being buriedup to the neck in apparent mock executions." The headman of thevillage was also tortured and reported, "I was called out andrepeatedly interrogated throughout the day ... I was beaten by theofficers an jawans ... they also indiscriminately attack[ed] thevillagers - ... chili powder dissolved in water [was] rubbed into thenostrils, eyes and soft parts of the body and [officers and jawans]took sadistic pleasure from the cries of pain by the victims."

Under similar circumstances in "Operation Rhino", Rajputana Riflessurrounded the village of Bodhakors on October 4, 1991. An extensivehouse to house searched was conducted during which women were sexuallyharassed and men were taken to interrogation camps. They were beatenup and kept without food or water. During this combing operation not asingle insurgent was found. The People's Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL) noted, "It is very difficult to understand the logic suchuseless raids, mass torture and interrogations, unless the purpose istaken to be the creation of pure terror for some sinister and ulteriormotives."

During Operation Bluebird, the military also forced the villagers ofOinam to work for them and provided them with no compensation. Thisviolates article 8(3) of the ICCPR which prohibits forced labour. TheAssam Rifles "rounded up villagers for forced labour for such tasks asporter service, building new army camps, washing clothes and carryingfirewood."

Article 9 of the ICCPR guarantees liberty and security of person, andthe AFSPA violates all five sub-parts of this right. Sub- part (1)guarantees that "Everyone has the right to liberty and security ofperson. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention. Noone shall be deprived of his Liberty except on such ground and inaccordance with such procedure as are established by law." All theresidents of a disturbed area are subject to arbitrary arrest. Themilitary can arrest them on mere suspicion and detain them forunspecified amounts of time before handing them over to the nearestmagistrate. Sub-part (2) states "Anyone who is arrested shall beinformed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest andshall be promptly informed of any charges against him." The AFSPA doesnot require the arresting army officer to inform the person of thereason for their arrest. This is a requirement under Indian criminalprocedure, but the military are not trained in this procedure. Sub-part (3) requires that "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminalcharge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officialauthorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled totrial within a reasonable time of release." The AFSPA requires lessthan this since it states that the person should be brought to thenearest police station "with the least possible delay". Moreover,requiring the person to be handed over to the police station does notassure that they will be brought promptly before a judge.

Article 26 of the ICCPR, like article 14 of the Indian Constitutionguarantees equal protection for all persons before the law. The AFSPAviolates this right because the inhabitants of the North East do nothave equal protection before the law. They live under a virtual butundeclared state of emergency and are given no remedy for theinjustices they suffer at the hands of the military. Inhabitants ofthe rest of India, with the exception of Punjab and Kashmir are notsubject to this law.

In response the UN Human Rights Committee in 1991, the AttorneyGeneral from India did not address the specific points of thesevarious ICCPR articles. He justified the AFSPA under Section 355 ofthe Indian Constitution which makes it the duty of the Union toprotect each state from external aggression. He said the AFSPA wasnecessary given the context of the North East where there is"infiltration of aliens into the territories mingling with the localpublic, and encouraging them towards this [secession]." He stated thatthe ICCPR does not encourage secession and governments are notencouraged to promote it. He said the AFSPA is a "temporary measure",not addressing the concern of committee members that the AFSPA hasproven to be a longterm provision as it has been in force for overthirty years.

International Customary Law

The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Body ofPrinciples for Protection of All Persons Under any form of Detention,and the UN Principles on Effective Prevention and Investigation ofExtra-legal and summary executions all form part of internationalcustomary law because they were passed by UN General Assemblyresolutions. They lend further strength to the conclusion that theAFSPA violates basic human rights standards.

The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials was adopted bythe UN General Assembly in resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979. Thiscode applies to all security forces stationed in the North East since"law enforcement officials" are defined as all those who exercisepolice powers, and it can include military officers. The first articlerequires that, "Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfilthe duty imposed upon them by law, by serving the community and byprotecting all persons against illegal act, consistent with the highdegree of responsibility required by their profession." A high degreeof responsibility is sadly lacking in the troops stationed in theNorth East. As exemplified by the atrocities noted above, the BSF,CRPF and Assam Rifles are not concerned with the requirements of thelaw enforcement profession, rather they are operating on a "warfooting".

The second article of the code requires that, "In the performance oftheir duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect humandignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons." Asdemonstrated above, multiple provisions of the basic human rightsstandards in the ICCPR are violated under the AFSPA. The AFSPAencourages the military officers to violate human rights because itallows the armed forces to base arrests, searches and seizures ontheir subjective suspicion. The armed forces know their actions willnot be reviewed and that they will not be held accountable for theiractions. They have neither the training nor the incentive to complywith this article of the Code.

Under Article 3 of the Code, "Law enforcement officials may use forceonly when strictly necessary and to the extent required for theperformance of their duty." The Attorney General of India tried toconvince the UN Human Rights Committee that the use of force under theAFSPA is strictly necessary and is "squarely within the requirementsof Article 3 [of the Code]." However, this argument ignores the sub-sections of Article 3 which stipulate that "(a) This provisionemphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials shouldbe exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may beauthorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under thecircumstances for the prevention of crime or in effecting or assistingin the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, no forcegoing beyond that may be used." This provision aims at establishingproportionality between the use of force by an officer and the use offorce by an offender. Under 4(a) of the AFSPA, the military personnelcan use force against people who are not presenting any force. Under4(c) they can use any amount of force necessary to arrest someone whois suspected of having committed, or being about to commit, anoffence. Under 4(d), this same excessive use of force can be justifiedin entering and searching premises without a warrant.

Sub-section (c) of the code further clarifies that "in general,firearms should not be used except when a suspected offender offersarmed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and lessextreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend thesuspected offender." When armed forces fire upon an unlawful assemblyunder Section 4(a) they are violating this basic provision. Moreover,the fact that the armed forces have begun firing into crowds and lobmortar shells in the middle of a town in the North East proves theyare not interested in "less extreme measures".

Under the Code, the armed forces have no grounds on which to justifytheir broad powers in the North East. Article 5 of the code reads, "Nolaw enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act oftorture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior orders orexceptional circumstances such as state of war or a threat of war, athreat to national security, internal political instability or anyother public emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (emphasis added) Thissweeps aside all the arguments made in the Lok Sabha to justify theoriginal passage of the AFSPA, as well as the Attorney General'sarguments before the UN Committee. Even if the North East is a"disturbed area" there is no justification for the human rights abusesbeing carried out by the military in the region.

The Body of Principles on Detention or Imprisonment was passed by UNGeneral Assembly resolution no. 43/173, on 9 December 1988. This bodyof principles applies to all persons under any form of detention. Itfurther strengthens several of the points raised under both Indian andinternational law.

Principle 10 states that "Anyone who is arrested shall be informed atthe time of his arrest of the reason for his arrest and shall bepromptly informed of the charges against him." The armed forces arenot obliged to provide this information under the AFSPA. Moreover,under principle 14, "A person who does not adequately understand orspeak the language used by the authorities responsible for his arrest,detention or imprisonment is entitled to receive [information]promptly in a language which he understands". Since the armed forcesstationed in the North East are foreign to the region they are unableto comply with this principle. Under principle 32 the right to habeascorpus must be absolutely guaranteed.

The Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions adopted by Economic and SocialCouncil also offer guidance for the use of force. Principle 3 says,"Governments shall prohibit orders from superior officers or publicauthorities authorizing or inciting other person to carry out any suchextra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions. All persons shall havethe right and the duty to defy such orders. Training of lawenforcement officials shall emphasize the above provisions." The armedforces operating in the North East should therefore not follow theexcessive power to shoot to kill granted in the AFSPA.

International Humanitarian Law

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 along with the two optionalprotocols, constitute the body of international humanitarian law.These provisions are suited to human rights protection in times ofarmed conflict. Under these conventions the International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC) is given access to all international conflicts.In non-international armed conflicts, the ICRC can only offer itsservices.

The ICRC's mandate in the context of non-international armed struggleis based on Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. However, India hasnot signed either protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Nevertheless,the ICRC can offer its services in such a conflict based on Article 3,paragraph 2, common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 ("animpartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee ofthe Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to theconflict"). When the ICRC offers its services in such a situation, astate does not have to accept them, or consider it an interference inits internal affairs. However, "in situations of internal disturbance,the rules of international humanitarian law can only be invoked byanalogy."

C) COMPARATIVE LAW STANDARDS

The British armed forces presence in Northern Ireland is an aptcomparison to the Indian military presence in the North East. TheBritish carry out arrests under the Northern Ireland (EmergencyProvisions) Act or the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)Act. When detainees were held for seven days without charge theEuropean Court of Human Rights found this to be in violation of theEuropean Human Rights Covenant.

5. CONCLUSIONSThe Supreme Court of India reached a low for its lack of enforcementof fundamental rights in the Jabalpur case of 1975. The country was ina state of emergency and the high courts had concluded that althoughthe executive could restrict certain rights, people could still filehabeas corpus claims. The Supreme Court rejected this conclusion andsaid the high court judges had substituted their suspicion of theexecutive for "frank and unreserved acception of the proclamation ofemergency." Noted Legal luminary, H M Seervai notes that this showsthe lack of judicial detachment. Indeed, it exemplifies a deference tothe executive which leaves the people with no enforcement of theirconstitutional rights. Jabalpur has since been deemed an incorrectdecision, but it remains an apt example of the judiciary's submissionto the executive.

The Supreme Court has avoided a Constitutional review for over 9years, the amount of time the principal case has been pending. TheCourt is not displaying any judicial activism on this Act. The LokSabha in the 1958 debate acknowledged that if the AFSPA wereunconstitutional, it would be for the Supreme Court to determine. Thedeference of the Delhi High Court to the legislature in the Indrajitcase also demonstrates a lack of judicial independence.

The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary was adoptedby the seventh UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders and was also adopted by the UN GeneralAssembly. Principle 2 of this document says, "The judiciary shalldecide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and inaccordance with the law, without any restrictions, improperinfluences, inducements, pressure, threats or interferences, direct orindirect, from any quarter or for any reason." The Indian judicialsystem is not subject to direct interference. It seems to functionindependently, but under the surface it is possible to discernindirect pressure. For example, the practice of appointing retiredjudges to commissions may well influence judges while they are on thebench. There may not be direct pressure to render decisions favorableto the executive, but certainly a judge who has "towed the governmentline" is more likely to be appointed by that same government to aposition of prominence upon retirement.

Moreover, there is an absence of creative legal thinking. When theGuwahati High Court was presented with international law argument inPeople's Union for Democratic Rights, the court ignored it. JusticeRaghuvir said in a personal interview that the court could not useinternational law. If the government has signed an internationalconvention like the ICCPR which requires the government to guaranteerights to its citizens, how can these be enforced if the judiciarydoes not turn to the text of the convention in its rendering ofdecisions? The courts are not turning to the spirit of the law whichguarantees the fundamental right to life to all people and as a resultviolations of human rights go unchecked.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence and Impartiality of theJudiciary, Jurors and Assessors and the Independence of Lawyers, MrParam Cumaraswamy, stated in the 51st Session of the Commission onHuman Rights on 10 February 1995, at the United Nations in Genevathat," The power of judicial review is vital for the protection of therule of law." He also quoted from Mr L M Singhvi's 1985 report that"the strength of legal institutions is a form of insurance for therule of law and for the observance of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms and for preventing the denial and miscarriage of justice."

6. RECOMMENDATIONSThe only way to guarantee that the human rights abuses perpetrated bythe armed forces in the North East cease is to both repeal the AFSPAand remove the military from playing a civil role in the area. Indeedwith 50% of the military forces in India acting in a domestic role,through internal security duties, there is a serious question as towhether the civil authority's role is being usurped. As long as thelocal police are not relied on they will not be able to assume theirproper role in law enforcement. The continued presence of the militaryforces prevents the police force from carrying out its functions. Thisalso perpetuates the justification for the AFSPA.

Among the recommendations made by the Working Group on ArbitraryDetention, from 1994 was the statement that "Governments which havebeen maintaining states of emergency in force for many years shouldlift them, limit their effects or review the custodial measures thataffect many persons, and in particular should apply the principle ofproportionality rigorously."

The National Human Rights Commission is now reviewing the AFSPA.Hopefully, the NHRC will find that the AFSPA is unconstitutional andwill submit this finding to the Supreme Court to influence its reviewof the pending cases. However, the NHRC has a very limited role. Inpast cases, the Supreme Court has not welcomed such intervention bythe NHRC. This was evident when the NHRC attempted to intervene in thehearing against the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act (TADA).

If the AFSPA is not repealed, it must at a bare minimum comply withinternational law and Indian law standards. This means the powers toshoot to kill under section 4(a) must be unequivocally revoked.Arrests must be made with warrants and no force should be allowed inthe search and seizure procedures. Section 5 should clearly state thatpersons arrested under the Act are to be handed over to the policewithin twenty-four hours. Section 6 should be completely repealed sothat individuals who suffer abuses at the hands of the security forcesmay prosecute their abusers.

Moreover, the definition of key phrases, especially "disturbed area"must be clarified. The declaration that an area is disturbed shouldnot be left to the subjective opinion of the Central or StateGovernment. It should have an objective standard which is judiciallyreviewable. Moreover, the declaration that an area is disturbed shouldbe for a specified amount of time, no longer than six months. Such adeclaration should not persist without legislative review.

Armed forces should not be allowed to arrest or carry out anyprocedure on suspicion alone. All their actions should have anobjective basis so that they are judicially reviewable. This will alsoassist those who file suit against the security forces.

All personnel acting in a law enforcement capacity should be trainedaccording to the UN Code of Conduct for law enforcement personnel. Theinstructions and training given to the armed forces should beavailable to the public. Complete transparency should be establishedso that a public accountability is rendered possible.

Having the armed forces comply with the Indian CrPC would also be abare minimum. The CrPC itself does not fully comply with internationalhuman rights standards, so making the AFSPA comply on its face withthe CrPC provisions for the use of minimal force, arrest, search andseizure would only be a rudimentary step in reducing the abusescommitted under the AFSPA.

If the Indian Government truly believes that the only way to handlethe governance of the North Eastern states is through force, then itmust allow the ICRC to intervene. This can only have a calminginfluence. Acceptance of ICRC services would demonstrate that thefighting parties want to bring an end to the violence. The ICRC'sinvolvement could help protect the residents of the North East who arecurrently trapped in the middle between insurgents and the military.

The ongoing agitation in Manipur for the repeal of AFSPA, started inthe wake of alleged torture, arrest, rape and killing of Manorama Deviby personnel of the 17th Assam Rifles, is gaining more and moresupport of the people of Manipur, notwithstanding the partialwithdrawal of the Act by the state government.

Manorama Devi’s killing once again exemplifies how the unrestrictedpowers granted by the Act to the armed forces are misused withimpunity. The UPA government which claims that it is in favour of therepeal of the Act, also wants to bring in another Act in its placewhenever AFSPA is withdrawn and it is very much doubtful that the saidAct will not be as draconian as the present one. The history of MISA,TADA, POTA and AFSPA is enough to prove that all of them have beenblatantly misused by governments to gag opposition and by police andarmed forces to torture, arrest and kill innocent people and todeprive people of their civil liberties against the spirit offundamental rights as enumerated in the Constitution of India andHuman Rights as enumerated under the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, 1948 by the UN and the two Covenants that followed it and towhich the country is a signatory.

Besides, that the central government does not seem to be in a hurry towithdraw AFSPA from the North Eastern states, or even the Assam Riflesfrom Manipur, is clear from the statements of Union Home Minister, Sh.Shivraj Patil who said that there is no unanimity in the state on thequestion of withdrawal of the AFSPA, since “many say that this lawshould be continued,” as reported by the press, and also as per thestatement of Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee on August 10, 2004 thatthere was no move to withdraw Assam Rifles from Manipur and that theArmed Forces (Special Powers) Act would continue to be in vogue in thetroubled state. The intentions of the central government are alsoclear from the fact that first it wants to bring in another Act in itsplace for which it proposes to bring a bill before Parliament in itsmonsoon session.

It is absurd to say that ‘many people’ from Manipur ‘suggest that thislaw should be continued’ as it would virtually mean that the Vice-Chancellor of Manipur University along with the faculty members whosat on a dharna in Imphal on August 10, the students, women, nursesare all waging a movement not against the removal of Assam Riflespersonnel and AFSPA from the state but for continuing them there sothat tortures, arrests, rapes and killings of innocent people continuethere. That the personnel of the armed forces posted there treat theCommissions of Enquiry and the rule of law with contempt is clear fromthe fact that Col. Jagmohan Singh, Commandant of 17th Assam Rifles andthe four other witnesses from the same force, who were to appearbefore the Upendra Commission enquiring into the death of Manorama didnot think it necessary to appear before it. The unlimited powers andimmunity from being prosecuted granted to them under the AFSPA hasmade personnel of these forces arrogant to the extent of becoming alaw unto themselves.

In the light of the popular demand of the repeal of AFSPA and for therestoration of the human rights and civil liberties of the people ofall the North-Eastern states where this act is in force, includingManipur, People’s Union for Civil Liberties ­ Delhi supports thepeaceful movement of the people of Manipur and other North-Easternstates to secure their democratic rights and fundamental freedoms anddemands that:-

The Central Government should give permission to the local police, asrequired under Section 7 of the AFSPA, to file a case against thealleged rapists and killers of Manorama Devi. Pending enquiry into theallegations by the enquiry commissions, Assam Rifles should be shiftedfrom Manipur. The family of Manorama Devi should be adequatelycompensated.

Along with POTA, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act should also berepealed immediately and cases instituted under them and allegationsof misuse should be enquired into by review committees within aspecified period and innocent people should be provided relief andcompensation by the government and those found guilty of misuse shouldbe punished.

The government should build an atmosphere of confidence and talk toall concerned parties for a political and peaceful solution of theproblems facing the North-Eastern states with an open mind, withoutany preconditions, within the framework of the Constitution of Indiaand all such groups should also reciprocate

The AFSPA: Lawless law enforcement according to the law?, ACHR, 5January 2005. Click

Review of AFSPA: Too Little, Too Late, ACHR, 3 November 2004. Click ]

(AFSPA, much maligned law, is a piece that stands out because of itsmisuse and because of the provisions that give the security forcespowers that go against the basic principles of rule of law. The AsianCentre for Human Rights has brought out a comprehensive reader on it.We bring excerpts from the Publication – Chief Editor)

Introduction“An effective international strategy to counter terrorism should usehuman rights as its unifying framework. The suggestion that humanrights violations are permissible in certain circumstances is wrong.The essence of human rights is that human life and dignity must not becompromised and that certain acts, whether carried out by State or non-State actors, are never justified no matter what the ends.International human rights and humanitarian law define the boundariesof permissible political and military conduct. A reckless approachtowards human life and liberty undermines counter-terrorism measures”.- Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rightsin her report to the 58th session of the United Nations Commission onHuman Rights.1

It took an unusual form of protest by some members of the MeiraPaibis, women activists, who stripped in front of the Kangla Fort,then headquarter of the Assam Rifles on 15 July 2004, followed by anequally unprecedented civil disobedience movement in Manipur neverseen in independent India to establish the Committee to Review(hereinafter referred to as “Review Committee”) the Armed ForcesSpecial Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 on 8 December 2004. The protests wereagainst the alleged extrajudicial execution of Ms Thangjam ManoramaDevi on the night of 11 July 2004 by the Assam Rifles personnel andthe withdrawal of the AFSPA.The AFSPA empowers the representative of the Central government, thegovernor to subsume the powers of the State government to declare“undefined” disturbed areas. It also empowers the non-commissionedofficers of the armed forces to arrest without warrant, to destroy anystructure that may be hiding absconders without any verification, toconduct search and seizure without warrant and to shoot even to thecausing of death. No legal proceeding against abuse of such arbitrarypowers can be initiated without the prior permission of the Centralgovernment. While introducing the AFSPA on 18 August 1958, thegovernment accepted it as an emergency measure and it was supposed tohave remained in operation only for one year.

The demand of the populace affected by the AFSPA either to completelywithdraw or substantively review the Act is matched by the demand forits retention by the armed forces and the hawks. A section of theApunba Lup, a congregation of 32 civil society organisations ofManipur leading the civil disobedience movement, called for a “publiccurfew” on 27 December 2004, the day members of the Review Committeereached Imphal, to press its demand for complete repeal of the AFSPA.Other members of the Apunba Lup and the family members of ManoramaDevi, however, submitted their representations to the ReviewCommittee. Immediately after the visit of the Review Committee toManipur, General Officer Commanding in Chief (Eastern Region), LtGeneral Arvind Sharma in his first press conference at Kolkata on 3January 2005 stated that the provisions of the AFSPA is “absolutelyessential” to tackle insurgency in the country. “I am afraid thatwithout the AFSPA, the Army will not be able to function in insurgencysituations... Without the Act, we will be a reactive” -stated LtGeneral Sharma.2

The mushrooming of the non-State actors and violations of theinternational humanitarian laws by these groups are realities of theNorth East India. “There is no doubt that States have legitimatereasons, right and duty to take all due measures to eliminateterrorism to protect their nationals, human rights, democracy and therule of law and to bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice”.3However, that does not give the State the right to take away the rightto life in an intentional and unlawful way or violate human rightsguaranteed under the constitution and international law. The AFSPA hasbecome the main symbol of repression because of its sheer misuse asdemonstrated in the various case studies of last few years provided inthis study. In addition, a few armed opposition groups were alsoinitially created by State agencies as a part of the counter-insurgency operations and these groups, later on, became Frankensteinmonsters.4

There is no doubt that the armed forces operate in difficult andtrying circumstances in the areas afflicted by internal armedconflicts. It is in these situations that the supremacy of thejudiciary and the primacy of the rule of law need to be upheld.However, if the law enforcement personnel stoop to the same level asthe non-State actors and perpetrate the same unlawful acts, there willbe no difference between the law enforcement personnel and the non-State actors whom the government calls “terrorists”.

This representation, submitted to the Review Committee, provides ananalysis of the illegality of the provisions of the AFSPA, the abuseof these provisions and therefore the need for its review and specificrecommendations. It also contains documents on national, regional andinternational human rights standards to ensure that amended theprovisions of the AFSPA are “in consonance with the obligations of theGovernment towards protection of Human Rights”. As Manipur has beenthe epicentre of the movement against the AFSPA, the case studies arecited mainly from Manipur. – Suhas Chakma, Director

Executive Summary“... there (Assam and Manipur), they (certain misguided sections ofthe Nagas, in the words of Mr. Pant) are indulging in -arson, murder,loot, dacoity etc. So it has become necessary to adopt effectivemeasures for the protection of the people in those areas. In order toenable the armed forces to handle the situation effectively whereversuch problem arises hereafter, it has been considered necessary tointroduce this Bill.” - then Home Minister G B Pant while introducingthe Armed Forces Special Powers Bill on 18 August 1958.

“In my humble opinion, this measure is unnecessary and alsounwarranted. This Bill is sure to bring about complications anddifficulties in those areas, especially in those which are going to bedeclared as disturbed areas. I fail to understand why the militaryauthorities are to be invested with special powers. I have found thatthese military authorities have always committed excesses in manycases, especially in the sub-divisions of Kohima and Mokokchung. Insuch a situation, I do not like that the officers should be investedwith special powers. Recently, such an incident took place in theHeadquarters of the North Cachar and Mikir Hills District. Instead ofrounding (up) the hostile Nagas, some military personnel trespassedinto the houses of some retired tribal official and committed rape onthe widow. So, such things have deteriorated the situation. The tribalpeople have risen against the military people there. It is, therefore,dangerous to invest the military authorities with extraordinary powersof killing and of arrest without warrant and of house breaking…… Howcan we imagine that these military officers should be allowed to shootto kill and without warrant arrest and search? This is a lawless law.There are various provisions in the Indian Penal Code and in theCriminal Procedure Code and they can easily deal with the law andorder situation in these parts. I am afraid that this measure willonly severe the right of the people and harass innocent folk anddeteriorate the situation.”- Mr. Laishram Achaw Singh, MP from InnerManipur Parliamentary Constituency while objecting to the AFSP Bill.5

Modelled on the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance promulgated bythe colonial British government on 15 August 1942 to suppress “QuitIndia Movement”, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 (AFSPA)was initially supposed to have remained in operation for one year totackle the Naga problem. However, after 45 years of imposition of theAFSPA, the Naga problem is far from resolved. The government of Indiaand Naga armed opposition groups - both Issac-Muivah and Kaplangfactions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland - have beenengaged in a peace process since July 1997. The peace process stressesthe axiom that political problems cannot be resolved by merely termingit as law and order problems - “arson, murder, loot, dacoity” - crimeswhich are more associated with mainland India’s Uttar Pradesh, Biharand Madhya Pradesh.

There is no doubt that a large number of armed opposition groupsoperate in Manipur and elsewhere in the North East and that they havebeen responsible for gross human rights abuses. Yet, unlawful lawenforcement only begets contempt for the rule of law and contributesto a vicious cycle of violence. The unusual form of demonstrations bysome members of the Meira Paibis who stripped themselves in front ofthe Kangla Fort on 15 July 2004 was an act of desperation to protestagainst the systematic denial of access to justice even for unlawful,intentional, arbitrary, summary and extrajudicial deprivation of theright to life. The third preambular paragraph of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights - “Whereas it is essential, if man is notto be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellionagainst tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protectedby the rule of law” - is prophetic about such situations.

A reckless approach towards human life and liberty in the last 45years under the AFPSA has been counter-productive and causedalienation of the people in the North East. The review of the AFSPA isoverdue for many reasons.

First, the AFSPA has manifestly failed to contain, let alone resolve,all insurgency problems in the North East. When the AFSPA was imposedon 8 September 1980, there were only four armed opposition groups inManipur - the United National Liberation Front, People’s RevolutionaryParty of Kangleipak, People’s Liberation Army, and National SocialistCouncil of Nagaland. However, today there are over two dozens armedopposition groups including the Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup, People’sUnited Liberation Front, North East Minority Peoples Front, IslamicNational Front, Islamic Revolutionary Front, United Islamic LiberationArmy, Kuki National Army, Kuki National Front, Kuki RevolutionaryArmy, Zomi Revolutionary Army and the United Kuki Liberation Front,among others.

Second, there are adequate laws to deal with insurgency situations andthe non-State actors. While India did not have specific laws in 1958to deal with armed opposition The AFSPA: Lawless law enforcementaccording to the law? groups, it has subsequently adopted numerousdraconian laws such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities(Prevention Act), 1985 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA),2002. After the lapse of these laws, the government of India amendedthe Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 in December 2004 toincorporate the provisions of the POTA. The Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act of 1967 as amended in 2004 is adequate to deal withall insurgent groups and their unlawful activities.

Third, the strength of any country claiming itself as “democratic”lies in upholding the supremacy of the judiciary and primacy of therule of law. It requires putting in place effective criminal-lawprovisions to deter the commission of offences against the innocentsand punishment for breaches of such provisions while exercisingexecutive powers; and not in providing the arbitrary powers to the lawenforcement personnel to be law unto themselves. The AFSPA violatesbasic tenets of criminal justice system in any civilized society.First, it provides special powers which tantamount to awarding heavierpenalty to the suspects than convicted persons would get under normalcourt, a clear violation of the cardinal principle of criminal justicesystem - nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.6 Second, non-application of due process of law makes the armed forces to be theirown judge and jury. Most importantly, by giving virtual impunity tothe armed forces under Section 6 of the AFSPA which makes itsmandatory to seek prior permission of the Central government toinitiate any legal proceedings, the Executive has expressed its lackof faith in the judiciary. Otherwise, it would have been left to thejudiciary to decide whether the charges are vexatious, abusive orfrivolous.

Though, there is no need for retention of the AFSPA, the ReviewCommittee appears to have already decided to retain the AFSPA withsome amendments. It has called for representation on whether it shouldrecommend to the government of India to “(i) amend the provisions ofthe Act to bring them in consonance with the obligations of theGovernment towards protection of Human Rights; or (ii) replace the Actby a more humane legislation.” Both the proposals have the same end -the retention of the Act.In order to uphold the supremacy of the judiciary and primacy of therule of law, the Review Committee must ensure that the judgements ofthe Supreme Court of India and opinions of international bodiesincluding the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the AFSPA areincorporated in the amended AFSPA. Leaving it to the armed forces torespect “Do’s and Don’ts” issued by the army authorities as naivelyespoused by the Supreme Court of India in its controversial judgmenton the constitutional validity of the AFSPA and to the courts todecide “case by case basis” have proved to be inadequate, ineffectiveand counter productive because of continued violations of humanrights.

Extrajudicial Executions for Maintenance of Public OrderSince Manipur has been declared as a “disturbed area” on 8 September1980, according to Manipur Chief Minister Lbobi Singh over 8,000innocent persons and over 12,000 members of armed opposition groupsand security forces have lost their lives.35

In practice, there are hundreds of armed encounters each year. Notevery armed encounter is questioned. However, when people, whetherinnocent civilians, suspects or members of armed oppositions groupsare captured from their houses or villages and routinely killed infake encounters, allegations of extrajudicial killings surface. Yet,there has been little or no documentary evidence to prove that thevictims were indeed arrested as no arrest memo is issued, not tomention about evidence to prove subsequent extrajudicial executions.

However, the extrajudicial execution of Ms Thangjam Manorama Devi hasboth exceptional as well as routine aspects.

It is exceptional because unlike hundreds of other arrests, the AssamRifles personnel issued an arrest warrant. Havildar (General Duty)Suresh Kumar (No. 173355) of the 17th Assam Rifles signed the arrestmemo. Rifleman T Lotha (No. 173916) and Rifleman Ajit Singh (No.173491) signed as witnesses. The arrest memo stated that Ms ManoramaDevi was arrested as a suspected member of the Peoples Liberation Armyand they recovered nothing from her and that she was healthy at thetime of her arrest.36The recovery of Manorama’s dead body from Ngariyan Mapao Maringvillage on the morning of 12 July 2004 with telltale signs of brutaltorture all over her body is a routine matter.37

Prior to the inquiry into the death of Manorama Devi, Justice Upendraconducted over half a dozen similar inquiries. Justice UpendraCommission as required under normal law of the land summoned theconcerned Assam Rifles personnel to depose as mere witness since theyhad signed the arrest warrant for Manorama. The fact that the AssamRifles questioned the jurisdiction of the Upendra Commission ofInquiry on the ground that the State government had not taken priorpermission from the Central government is nothing unusual either.

Impunity to the Armed ForcesUnder Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, “Noprosecution, suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted,except with the previous sanction of the Central Government againstany person in respect of anything done or purported to be done inexercise of powers conferred by this Act.”101

This provision violates India’s treaty obligation under Article 2(3)of the ICCPR according to which:

“Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as hereinrecognized are violated shall have an effective remedy,notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by personsacting in an official capacity;To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his rightthereto determined by competent judicial, administrative orlegislative authorities, or by any other competent authority providedfor by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilitiesof judicial remedy;To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies.”What is more worrying is the fact that Section 6 of the AFSPA has beenovertaken by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code102 (Cr.P.C.)amended in 1991 to provide virtual impunity to the armed forces.Impunity has been made a feature of normal criminal jurisprudence. Infact Section 197 of the Cr P.C. has made section 6 of the AFSPAredundant. If the Central government were to give permission undersection 197 of the Cr P.C., there is no reason as to why the samepermission will not be granted under Section 6 of the AFSPA.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary andArbitrary Executions lucidly summarised the impunity and extra-judicial executions in her report to the 57th session of the UnitedNations Commission on Human Rights:“Impunity for human rights offenders seriously undermines the rule oflaw, and also widens the gap between those close to the powerstructures and others who are vulnerable to human rights abuses. Inthis way, human rights violations are perpetuated or sometimes evenencouraged, as perpetrators feel that they are free to act in aclimate of impunity. ....., extrajudicial killings and acts of murdermay sometimes also go unpunished because of the sex, religious belief,or ethnicity of the victim. Long-standing discrimination and prejudiceagainst such groups are often used as justification of these crimes.The increasing difficulties in securing justice alienate the peoplefrom the State and may drive them to take the law into their ownhands, resulting in a further erosion of the justice system and avicious circle of violence and retaliation. If unaddressed, suchsituations may easily degenerate into a state of anarchy and socialdisintegration. Human rights protection and respect for the rule oflaw are central to lasting peace and stability. It is, therefore,crucial that conflict prevention strategies and post-conflict peace-building efforts include effective measures to end the culture ofimpunity and protect the rule of law.”103

While examining the third periodic report of the government of India,an expert of the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated “Article6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which prevented all legalproceedings against members of the armed forces, was extremelyworrying; if the Government’s fear was that citizens would bringvexatious or frivolous actions, that was a matter better left to thecourts to resolve. It was inadmissible for citizens to be deprived ofa remedy as was at present the case”.104

In its Concluding Observations, the United Nations Human RightsCommittee noted “with concern that criminal prosecutions or civilproceedings against members of the security and armed forces, actingunder special powers, may not be commenced without the sanction of thecentral Government. This contributes to a climate of impunity anddeprives people of remedies to which they may be entitled inaccordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant”.

There are adequate legal guarantees for preventing vexatious andfrivolous actions. However, by making it mandatory to seek priorpermission of the Central government to initiate any legal proceedingsagainst the armed forces, the Executive has expressed its lack offaith in the judiciary of the country.

Abuses by the Armed Opposition Groups1. Background on the Armed Opposition Groups in ManipurManipur literally meaning “A jeweled land” came under the British Ruleas a Princely State after the defeat in the Anglo-Manipuri War of1891. After independence of India in 1947, the Princely State ofManipur was merged in the Indian Union on 15 October 1949 and became afull-fledged State of India on the 21 January 1972.

Manipur was recognized as a state in 1972, nine years after Nagalandwas created out of Assam in 1963. The Manipuri language was includedin the Eight Schedule of the Constitution of India in 1992 after aprolong struggle.Manipur is not only about the Meiteis who profess VaisnavitesHinduism. It is also home to about 30 different tribes who professChristianity. Some of the larger tribes include Nagas, Kukis, Paites,Thadous, Simtes, Vaipheis, Raltes, Gangtes and Hmars. Unlike theMeiteis, who occupy the Imphal Valley and constitute a little over 50%of the total population, the other tribes inhabit the surrounding hilldistricts.

The Meitei armed opposition groups were mainly based in Imphal valleyalthough the Kuki Movement for Human Rights alleged that they havestrengthened their bases in hilly areas.

The first armed opposition group, United National Liberation Front(UNLF), was formed on 24 November 1964 by Samarendra Singh demandingindependence from India. Since then many armed opposition groups ledby Meiteis were established with similar objectives. The People’sRevolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) was formed in 1977. ThePeople’s Liberation Army (PLA) was formed in 1978. The KangleipakCommunist Party (KCP) was formed in 1980. As an off-shoot of UNLF,Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup (KYKL) was formed in 1990s. All the Meiteiarmed opposition groups reportedly function presently under the bannerof Manipur People’s Liberation Front (MPLF).112

After a series of clashes between Meiteis and the Pangals, theManipuri muslims, in May, 1993 which led to the killings of 97persons, a number of new outfits such as People’s United LiberationFront (PULF), North East Minority Peoples Front (NEMPF), IslamicNational Front, Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF) and United IslamicLiberation Army (UILA) were formed.

Of the 40 Naga sub-tribes in the North East, there are over 20 Nagatribes in Manipur particularly in Ukhrul, Senapati, Chandel andTamenglong districts. Both factions of the National Socialist Councilof Nagaland, the Issac-Muivah and Kaplang factions are active inManipur. The Naga armed opposition groups demand independence of Nagainhabited areas. In the negotiation between the government of Indiaand the NSCN (I-M), the issue of “Greater Nagaland” consisting of theNaga inhabited areas in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagalandhas figured.

The Meiteis, the State government of Manipur and the Meitei armedopposition groups oppose the inclusion of the Naga inhabited areasinto the so called Greater Nagaland. The extension of the cease-fireagreement between the National Socialist Council of Nagaland and thegovernment of India into Manipur led to protest and the burning of theManipur State assembly in June 2001. The State Government of Manipurhowever withdrew the ban on the NSCN on 30 November 2002.113

The conflicts between the Nagas and the Kukis since 1992 led toemergence of a number of Kuki armed opposition groups such as KukiNational Army (KNA), Kuki National Front (KNF), Kuki RevolutionaryArmy (KRA), Zomi Revolutionary Army (ZRA) and the United KukiLiberation Front. Most of these Kuki outfits are demanding a “separatehomeland” within the Indian union.

Since Manipur has been declared as a Disturbed Area in 1980, accordingto Manipur Chief Minister Ibobi Singh over 8,000 innocent persons andover 12,000 members of armed opposition groups and security forceshave lost their lives.114

The people of Manipur are caught in a vicious cycle. The nexus betweenthe political leaders and armed opposition groups is a publicknowledge in Manipur. The extortion, euphemistically called as taxesby the armed opposition groups, is also public knowledge and oftencollected under the noses of the administration. Across the highwaysboth the security forces and armed opposition groups extort frominnocent people as well as businessmen.

The armed opposition groups reportedly collect taxes from sources -meaning a government official from a particular department has tocollect the extortion money, euphemistically called “taxes” on behalfof the armed opposition groups who then distribute it amongthemselves. All government officials including the senior mostofficials allegedly pay taxes. In a rare incident, in June 2004, theState government accorded sanction for prosecution of two employees ofthe All India Radio, Imphal who are accused of collecting illegal“taxes” from fellow employees on behalf of three separate undergroundorganisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The twomen, Meisnam Achou Singh, 56, of Keisampat Mutum Leirak, a programmeexecutive, and Hijam Homendro Singh, 57, of Kongpal Khaidem Leikai, anaccountant, allegedly collected a total of Rs. 3,34,310 from 122fellow employees at the rate of 1% of basic pay, and paid the same toactivists of the underground UNLF, PREPAK and KYKL during the year2000.115

The situation of the Kukis exemplies the plight of the civilians.According to the Kuki Movement for Human Rights armed oppositiongroups forcibly stay in their villages, mix themselves with the civilpopulation, use the civilians as human shields against the securityforces. The villagers are used for sentry day and night on rotation aswell as for cooking and carrying supplies needed by them. All pathsare mined (land mine) thereby making free movement difficult bothhuman being and domestic animals. The people also have to give food.When the security forces find the members of the armed oppositiongroups, the villagers are subjected to atrocities for informing thesecurity forces. If the security forces come to know about thepresence of the armed opposition groups, the villagers are once againblamed for proving shelter and support